United States v. Donnell Benson ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4480
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DONNELL DEAN BENSON, a/k/a Dizzy,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III,
Chief District Judge. (5:11-cr-00122-D-1)
Submitted: January 30, 2014 Decided: February 14, 2014
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dhamian A. Blue, BLUE STEPHENS & FELLERS LLP, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant
United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Donnell Dean Benson appeals his conviction and
sentence for conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent
to distribute more than 280 grams of cocaine base and five
kilograms of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2012).
Benson pled guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement and was
sentenced to 372 months’ imprisonment and five years of
supervised release. On appeal, counsel for Benson filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting
that there are no meritorious issues for appeal in light of
Benson’s waiver of his right to appeal. Benson did not file a
supplemental pro se brief, despite notice of his right to do so.
The Government elected not to file a response to the Anders
brief.
Although counsel is correct that Benson’s plea
agreement contained an appellate waiver, the Government has not
sought to enforce the waiver in this case. Accordingly, we
conduct a review of the record as required by Anders. See
United States v. Poindexter, 492 F.3d 263, 271 (4th Cir. 2007)
(“If an Anders brief is filed, the government is free to file a
responsive brief raising the waiver issue (if applicable) or do
nothing, allowing this court to perform the required Anders
review.”).
2
In accordance with the requirements of Anders, we have
examined the entire record and have found no meritorious issues.
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court
requires that counsel inform Benson, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Benson 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 Benson.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
3