Rehearing granted, February 3, 2011

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4312

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CHRISTOPHER J. RUFFIN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:09-cr-00335-HEH-1)

Submitted: November 9, 2010 Decided: November 23, 2010

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Frances H. Pratt, Elizabeth S. Wilson, Assistant Federal Public Defenders, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, Stephen W. Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Christopher J. Ruffin appeals from his conviction and

240-month sentence following his guilty plea to one count of

manufacturing and possessing with intent to distribute

marijuana, in violation of

(a) (2006); and one

count of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation

of

(g)(1) (2006). Ruffin’s counsel filed a brief

pursuant to Anders v. California,

(1967),

stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but

questioning whether the district court complied with Fed. R.

Crim. P. 11 in accepting Ruffin’s guilty plea. Ruffin was

advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but did

not do so. The Government filed a responding brief arguing that

Ruffin waived his right to appeal his conviction. Finding

Ruffin validly waived the right to appeal his conviction and

sentence, we dismiss his appeal.

A defendant may waive the right to appeal if that

waiver is knowing and intelligent. United States v. Manigan,

(4th Cir. 2010). Generally, if the district

court fully questions a defendant regarding the waiver of his

right to appeal during the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 colloquy, the

waiver is both valid and enforceable. United States v. Johnson,

(4th Cir. 2005); United States v. General,

(4th Cir. 2002). The question of whether a

2 defendant validly waived his appeal rights is a question of law

that this court reviews de novo. Manigan,

.

Our review of the record leads us to conclude that

Ruffin knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to appeal his

conviction and sentence. Ruffin’s challenge to the district

court’s acceptance of his guilty plea falls within the scope of

the waiver. We therefore dismiss Ruffin’s appeal.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues not

covered by the plea agreement’s waiver of appellate rights. We

therefore dismiss Ruffin’s appeal. This court requires that

counsel inform Ruffin, in writing, of the right to petition the

Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If

Ruffin requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes

that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move

in this court for leave to withdraw from representation.

Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on

Ruffin. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED

3