United States v. Moody , 51 F. App'x 431 ( 2002 )


Menu:
  •                           UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,              
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.                              No. 02-4480
    CHRISTOPHER LEE MOODY,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,              
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.                              No. 02-4498
    CHRISTOPHER LEE MOODY,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,              
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.                              No. 02-4500
    CHRISTOPHER LEE MOODY,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    
    Appeals from the United States District Court
    for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham.
    N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief District Judge;
    James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge.
    (CR-01-384, CR-01-439, CR-01-452)
    Submitted: November 21, 2002
    Decided: December 2, 2002
    2                      UNITED STATES v. MOODY
    Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    COUNSEL
    Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury, Jr.,
    Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
    Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Lisa B.
    Boggs, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina,
    for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
    Local Rule 36(c).
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    In these consolidated appeals filed pursuant to Anders v. Califor-
    nia, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967), Christopher Lee Moody contests his con-
    viction and 169-month custodial sentence following his guilty plea to
    brandishing a firearm during a drug trafficking offense (Count Three),
    see 
    18 U.S.C. § 924
    (c)(1)(A) (2000), and being a felon in possession
    of a firearm (Count Four), see 
    18 U.S.C. § 922
    (g)(1) (2000). Moody
    also noted appeals from the revocation of two separate terms of super-
    vised release. Although Moody was apprised of his right to file pro
    se supplemental briefs in each appeal, he failed to do so. For the fol-
    lowing reasons, we affirm.
    In No. 02-4480, Moody appeals the revocation of his supervised
    release for his conviction in the Southern District of Florida for con-
    spiring to distribute LSD in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 371
     (2000) and
    UNITED STATES v. MOODY                          3
    
    21 U.S.C. § 841
    (a) (2000). Because Moody admitted violating the
    terms of his supervised release and does not challenge the revocation
    of his supervised release or the imposition of an 18-month sentence,
    we affirm.
    In No. 02-4498, Moody appeals the revocation of a term of super-
    vised release relating to his conviction for escape, see 
    18 U.S.C. § 751
    (a) (2000), imposed in the Eastern District of North Carolina.
    Because Moody admitted to violating the terms of his supervised
    release and does not challenge its revocation or the 24-month sen-
    tence imposed, we affirm.
    In No. 02-4500, Moody appeals his 169-month sentence following
    his guilty plea to the foregoing firearms charges.* However, we find
    no error in the district court’s determination that the base offense
    level for this offense was twenty-four based on Moody’s criminal his-
    tory. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(a)(2) (2000);
    see also United States v. Brandon, 
    247 F.3d 186
    , 188-89 (4th Cir.
    2001).
    We have reviewed the record for meritorious issues and found
    none. Accordingly, we affirm Moody’s sentence in each appeal. This
    Court requires that counsel for each defendant 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, counsel may
    then move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation.
    Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the cli-
    ent. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal con-
    tentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
    argument would not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    *Moody’s plea agreement contains a waiver of his right to appeal "the
    conviction and whatever sentence is imposed," by appeal pursuant to 
    18 U.S.C. § 3742
    (a)(2000), or collateral attack under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
    (2000). Because it appears the district court did not specifically review
    the waiver with Moody in accepting his plea, we have reviewed the mer-
    its of his claims on appeal. See United States v. Wessells, 
    936 F.2d 165
    ,
    167-68 (4th Cir. 1991).
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-4480, 02-4498, 02-4500

Citation Numbers: 51 F. App'x 431

Judges: Niemeyer, Williams, Traxler

Filed Date: 12/2/2002

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024