basis to which he and the Government stipulated in the plea agreement “settled all material factual disputes.” He claims his detrimental reliance on these representations renders his plea unknowing and involuntary. He contends the Government was duplicitous in gaining a waiver of his trial rights in a case it could probably not win at trial and that it used a “bait-and-switch” tactic. He further maintains that the testimony received at sentencing was hearsay and not sufficiently reliable. We find Vazquez knowingly and voluntarily waived in his plea agreement his right to appeal his conviction and sentence, which includes the four-level role enhancement and the denial of application of the safety valve provision. See United States v. Broughton-Jones, 71 F.3d 1143, 1146 (4th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>) (internal quotation marks and citations
holding that a defendants waiver of the right to testify must be knowing informed and intelligent holding that under the sixth amendment a criminal defendant may waive his right to counsel if that waiver is knowing intelligent and voluntary recognizing requirement of knowing intelligent waiver holding a waiver of a substantial constitutional right must be a voluntary knowing and intelligent act holding that an appeal waiver is valid if it is the result of a knowing and intelligent decision to forgo the right to appeal