
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James PLAISIR, a/k/a Q, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-4379.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Nov. 30, 2010.
    Decided: Dec. 6, 2010.
    Nicholas Forrest Colvin, The Law Office of Nicholas Forrest Colvin, Esq., PLLC, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. Betsy C. Jividen, United States Attorney, Erin K. Reisenweber, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

James Plaisir pled guilty to one count of distribution of cocaine base (crack), 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2006), and was sentenced to a term of 151 months imprisonment. Plaisir seeks to appeal his sentence, arguing that the district court incorrectly determined the quantity of crack for which he was responsible. The government contends that the appeal should be dismissed based on Plat-sir’s waiver of appellate rights in his plea agreement. We agree, and dismiss the appeal. We review a defendant’s waiver of appellate rights de novo. United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir.2005). A defendant may waive the right to appeal if the waiver is knowing and intelligent. United States v. Amaya-Portillo, 423 F.3d 427, 430 (4th Cir.2005). Generally, if the defendant is fully questioned about the waiver during the plea colloquy, the waiver is valid and enforceable. United States v. Johnson, 410 F.3d 137, 151 (4th Cir.2005). We will enforce a valid waiver if the issue raised on appeal is within the scope of the waiver. Blick, 408 F.3d at 168.

Here, the record reveals that Plaisir’s waiver was knowing and voluntary. His challenge to the sentence is within the scope of the waiver provision. We therefore dismiss the appeal.

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. 
      
       A magistrate judge, acting with Plaisir's consent, conducted the Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 hearing. See United States v. Osborne, 345 F.3d 281, 285 (4th Cir.2003) (magistrate judge may conduct hearing if defendant waives right to enter guilty plea before district court judge).
     