
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leander Dewey JONES, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-4556
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: January 26, 2017
    Decided: February 1, 2017
    Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Eric J. Brignac, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Ethan A. Ontjes, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Leander Dewey Jones pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to manufacturing child pornography and was sentenced to 360 months’ imprisonment. Jones’ counsel now appeals the substantive reasonableness of Jones’ sentence in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). The Government has moved to dismiss Jones’ appeal based upon a waiver of appellate rights in his plea agreement.

We conclude that the appeal waiver contained in Jones’ plea agreement is valid, as he entered it knowingly and intelligently. See United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 627 (4th Cir. 2010). Moreover, Jones’ appeal of the substantive reasonableness of his sentence is barred by his waiver of appellate rights. Accordingly, we grant the motion to dismiss to the extent that it seeks dismissal of Jones’ substantive reasonableness claim.

Furthermore, in accordance with An-ders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal that are outside of the scope of the appeal waiver. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment as to any issue not precluded by the plea waiver.

This court requires that counsel inform Jones, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Jones 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 Jones. 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.

DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART  