United States v. Lee ( 2005 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4941
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JOHN CURTIS LEE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief
District Judge. (CR-03-104)
Submitted: July 6, 2005 Decided: August 18, 2005
Before MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Frank D. Whitney, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes,
Christine Witcover Dean, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
John Curtis Lee appeals the district court’s order
sentencing him to 210 months’ imprisonment following his guilty
pleas to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000); possession of an unregistered
explosive device and possession of an unregistered silencer, in
violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 5841, 5861, & 5871 (2000); and unlawful
manufacture of a weapon, in violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 5822, 5861,
& 5871 (2000). We affirm.
In his appeal, filed pursuant to Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), counsel for Lee claims that the Government
engaged in misconduct by failing to timely disclose prejudicial
material that enhanced Lee’s sentence. Criminal defendants may
waive their statutory right to direct appeal as part of a plea
agreement with the government. United States v. Marin, 961 F.2d
493, 496 (4th Cir. 1992). Lee unambiguously waived his right to
appeal his sentence by the terms of his plea agreement with the
Government. Accordingly, Lee’s claim relating to the calculation
of his sentence is precluded by his plea agreement.
Pursuant to Anders, we have reviewed the record for any
error outside the scope of Lee’s waiver of appellate rights and
have found no meritorious issues. Accordingly, we affirm Lee’s
conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform
his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court
- 2 -
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. Counsel’s motion must state that
a copy thereof was served on the client. 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 -