United States v. Dean ( 1997 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
No. 97-4163
CARL LAMONT DEAN, a/k/a Jermaine
Dean,
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-96-46-V)
Submitted: November 12, 1997
Decided: December 5, 1997
Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________________________________
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Randolph Marshall Lee, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Mark T. Calloway, United States Attorney, Robert J. Higdon, Jr.,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Carl Lamont Dean pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent
to distribute cocaine and cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(a)(1), 846 (1994). As part of his plea agreement he waived his
right to appeal his conviction and sentence. After acknowledging that
Dean was not yet entitled to a reduction in his sentence based upon
substantial assistance, the district court sentenced Dean to 240 months
imprisonment, the lowest sentence in the applicable guidelines range,
to be followed by a ten-year term of supervised release. Dean appeals
his sentence.
Dean's counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), noting that the district court declined
to depart downward from the applicable sentence but stating that, in
his view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Dean's counsel
provided him with a copy of the Anders brief and informed him of his
right to file a pro se supplemental brief; despite receiving an exten-
sion of time he has not filed a pro se brief. Because Dean expressly
waived his right to appeal, we dismiss the appeal.
The transcript of Dean's Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing reveals that
he understood the full significance of the waiver provision of his plea
agreement.1 When the district court specifically asked Dean about the
waiver, he stated that he understood he was waiving his right to
appeal. The plea agreement provided that the waiver did not apply to
claims to prosecutorial misconduct or ineffective assistance of coun-
sel. However, Dean does not raise either of these claims, nor does our
_________________________________________________________________
1 See United States v. Broughton-Jones, 71 F.3d 1143, 1146 (4th Cir.
1995) (holding that a waiver is valid if it is knowing and intelligent).
2
review of the record disclose facts which would support such claims.
Accordingly, we find that Dean's waiver is knowing and intelligent.2
We dismiss the appeal. Further, we deny Dean's motion to compel
his counsel to provide all documents that he alleges are relevant to his
appeal. Dean has not demonstrated a particularized need or raised any
specific issues in regard to the requested documents, and all docu-
ments relevant to this appeal are a part of the record on appeal.
This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If the client 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. Coun-
sel's motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client.
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.
DISMISSED
_________________________________________________________________
2 See United States v. Wessells , 936 F.2d 165, 167 (4th Cir. 1991);
United States v. Wiggins, 905 F.2d 51, 53 (4th Cir. 1990).
3