
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jon Phillip DUMIRE, a/k/a JP, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-4799
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: June 20, 2017
    Decided: July 6, 2017
    Paul G. Beers, GLENN,. FELDMANN, DARBY & GOODLATTE, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. Jean Barrett Hudson, Assistant United States Attorney, Char-lottesville, Virginia; Rick A, Mountcastle, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Ap-pellee.
    Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
   . Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jon Phillip Dumire pled guilty, pursuant to a Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement, to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2012). The district court imposed a sentence of 72 months’ imprisonment, within the range agreed to by the parties in the plea agreement. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), questioning whether the district court correctly found that malicious wounding qualified as a crime of violence pursuant to U.S. Sen-tencing_Guidelines_Manual § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A) (2016). Dumire has filed a pro se supplemental brief further contending that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. We affirm in part and dismiss in part.

Generally, we review a defendant’s sentence “under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). “However, not all sentences are subject to appellate review." United States v. Williams, 811 F.3d 621, 622-23 (4th Cir. 2016). In this case, we lack jurisdiction to review Dumire’s sentence of imprisonment because the district court sentenced Du-mire in accordance with the terms of his Rule 11(c)(1)(C) agreement, Dumire’s sentence is not unlawful, nor was the sentencing range in the agreement expressly based on the Sentencing Guidelines. See id. at 623-25.

In accordance with Anders, within the constraints set forth in Williams, 811 F.3d at 621, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for review. We therefore dismiss Dumire’s challenge to his sentence of imprisonment and affirm the remainder of the district court’s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Dumire, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Dumire 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 Dumire.

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

AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART .  