UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 96-4058

TONY OSIAS, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, Chief District Judge. (CR-94-40-V)

Submitted: December 12, 1996

Decided: December 24, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

George V. Laughrun, II, GOODMAN, CARR, NIXON, LAUGH- RUN & LEVINE, P.A., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Mark T. Calloway, United States Attorney, Gretchen C.F. Shappert, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Tony Osias appeals from the sentence imposed by the district court his plea of guilty to involvement in a crack cocaine conspiracy in vio- lation of

(1994). We affirm.

In his plea agreement Osias waived his right to appeal except for claims of ineffective assistance of counsel or prosecutorial miscon- duct. This waiver was discussed at the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 colloquy and is therefore valid and fully enforceable. United States v. Broughton-Jones,

(4th Cir. 1995). Of the claims Osias raised on appeal, only one is reviewable under the waiver provi- sion. Osias alludes to prosecutorial misconduct in his claim that the trial court erred in not applying the safety valve provision of the United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual, § 5C1.2 (Nov. 1994). Osias claims that the prosecutor breached a stipulation in the plea agreement that there would be no enhancements to the base offense level and that this stipulation precluded the Government from arguing that Osias was a "leader/organizer" in the conspiracy for the purpose of denying him the benefit of § 5C1.2. This claim is with- out merit because there was no stipulation but rather an agreement to not recommend further enhancements. Further, § 5C1.2 does not involve enhancements and the Government did not argue for any enhancements. As for Osias's other claims, he has waived the right to appeal. Broughton-Jones,

. Accordingly, we deny Osias's motion to file a pro se supplemental brief and reply brief and the Government's motion to file a response, and we affirm.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten- tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

2