explaining: "[A]s long as you could liquidate any company ... and somebody can embezzle at will as long as the liquidated value that they have in the company is greater than what they took, there is a zero embezzlement. I question that.” 4 . See, e.g., United States v. General, 278 F.3d 389, 399-401 (4th Cir.2002); United States v. Brown, 232 F.3d 399, 402-06 (4th Cir.2000); United States v. Brock, 211 F.3d 88, 92 n. 6 (4th Cir.2000); United States v. Lambey, 974 F.2d 1389, 1393 n. * (4th Cir.1992) (en banc); United States v. Marin, 961 F.2d 493, 495-96 (4th Cir.1992); see also United States v. Davis, 954 F.2d 182, 185-86 (4th Cir.1992) (enforcing a waiver that precluded the defendant from appealing certain convictions); cf. United States v. Williams, 29 F.3d 172, 174-75 (4th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). 5 . To whatever extent appeal waivers can be
holding a defendant who pleads guilty without raising a double jeopardy issue  has waived his right to appeal that issue holding defendants failure to object to the drug quantity assessment in the presentence report at sentencing was a waiver of the issue on appeal holding that when a district court determines drug quantity for the purpose of sentencing a defendant convicted of participating in a drugtrafficking conspiracy the court is required to make an individualized finding as to drug amounts attributable to or foreseeable by that defendant holding prior drug deals admissible to prove knowledge of the drug trade holding that a defendant who stipulated his drug amounts prior to sentencing waived his right to appeal on the issue of the drug amounts