
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Eureka Perez GOODWIN, a/k/a Rico, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 11-4483.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Jan. 10, 2012.
    Decided: Jan. 11, 2012.
    Jason P. Peavy, Law Office of Jason P. Peavy, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Julius Ness Richardson, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before DUNCAN, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Eureka Perez Goodwin seeks to appeal his conviction and sentence after pleading guilty to conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (2006) and making false statements in connection with the acquisition of firearms in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 922(a)(6), 924(a)(2) (2006). Goodwin’s attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), asserting, in his opinion, there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but raising the issues of whether the district court complied with Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 in accepting Goodwin’s guilty plea and whether his sentence is reasonable. The Government has moved to dismiss the appeal as barred by Goodwin’s waiver of the right to appeal included in the plea agreement. Goodwin was notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. Upon review of the plea agreement and the transcript of the Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 hearing, we conclude that Goodwin knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal. Accordingly, we grant the Government’s motion to dismiss.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore grant the Government’s motion to dismiss and dismiss the appeal. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client 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 the client.

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.  