United States v. Price ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-5002
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CHARLES E. PRICE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District
Judge. (CR-01-537-AMD)
Submitted: July 10, 2003 Decided: July 15, 2003
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Denise C. Barrett, Assistant
Federal Public Defender, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant.
Thomas M. DiBiagio, United States Attorney, Michael J. Leotta,
Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Charles E. Price pled guilty to bank robbery and received a
fifty-five month sentence. In his plea agreement, he waived the
right to appeal his sentence. His attorney has filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that
there are no meritorious issues for appeal but addressing alleged
violation of Price’s right to a speedy trial. Price filed a pro se
supplemental brief further arguing the speedy trial issue. For the
reasons that follow, we affirm.
Price contends that pretrial delays violated his rights under
the Speedy Trial Act. However, excluding the time during which
pretrial motions were pending, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(1)(F), (J)
(2000); United States v. Parker, 30 F.3d 542, 546-48 (4th Cir.
1994), Price pled guilty well within the time constraints of the
Act.
We have examined the entire record in this case in accordance
with the requirements of Anders and find no meritorious issues for
appeal. Accordingly, we affirm, and we deny Price’s motion to
appoint counsel. This court requires that counsel inform the
client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of
the United States for further review. Thus, we deny counsel’s
motion for leave to withdraw at this time. If Price requests that
a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition
would be frivolous, then counsel may renew the motion to withdraw
2
from representation. 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.
AFFIRMED
3