UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                  No. 96-4058

TONY OSIAS,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Richard L. Voorhees, Chief District Judge.
(CR-94-40-V)

Submitted: December 12, 1996

Decided: December 24, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG,
Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

George V. Laughrun, II, GOODMAN, CARR, NIXON, LAUGH-
RUN & LEVINE, P.A., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Mark T. Calloway, United States Attorney, Gretchen C.F. Shappert,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Tony Osias appeals from the sentence imposed by the district court
his plea of guilty to involvement in a crack cocaine conspiracy in vio-
lation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (1994). We affirm.

In his plea agreement Osias waived his right to appeal except for
claims of ineffective assistance of counsel or prosecutorial miscon-
duct. This waiver was discussed at the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 colloquy
and is therefore valid and fully enforceable. United States v.
Broughton-Jones, 71 F.3d 1143, 1146 (4th Cir. 1995). Of the claims
Osias raised on appeal, only one is reviewable under the waiver provi-
sion. Osias alludes to prosecutorial misconduct in his claim that the
trial court erred in not applying the safety valve provision of the
United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual, § 5C1.2
(Nov. 1994). Osias claims that the prosecutor breached a stipulation
in the plea agreement that there would be no enhancements to the
base offense level and that this stipulation precluded the Government
from arguing that Osias was a "leader/organizer" in the conspiracy for
the purpose of denying him the benefit of § 5C1.2. This claim is with-
out merit because there was no stipulation but rather an agreement to
not recommend further enhancements. Further, § 5C1.2 does not
involve enhancements and the Government did not argue for any
enhancements. As for Osias's other claims, he has waived the right
to appeal. Broughton-Jones, 71 F.3d at 1146. Accordingly, we deny
Osias's motion to file a pro se supplemental brief and reply brief and
the Government's motion to file a response, and we affirm.

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

AFFIRMED

                    2
