United States v. Everhart ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4445
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ERIC EVERHART,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief
District Judge. (CR-02-62, CR-03-8)
Submitted: October 23, 2003 Decided: October 29, 2003
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Raymond H. Yackel, Jr., LAW OFFICE OF RAYMOND H. YACKEL,
Morgantown, West Virginia, for Appellant. Thomas E. Johnson, United
States Attorney, John C. Parr, Assistant United States Attorney,
Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Eric Everhart pled guilty to conspiracy to possess heroin with
intent to distribute, 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000), and a criminal
forfeiture information. 21 U.S.C.A. § 853 (West 1999 & Supp. 2003).
He was sentenced to a term of 110 months imprisonment. Under the
terms of his plea agreement, Everhart waived the right to appeal
his sentence. Everhart's attorney has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising as a potentially
meritorious issue the district court’s denial of an adjustment for
acceptance of responsibility, USSG § 3E1.1 (2002), but asserting
that, in his view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal.
Everhart has been informed of his right to file a pro se
supplemental brief, but has not filed a brief. We affirm the
conviction and dismiss that portion of the appeal in which Everhart
contests his sentence.
A defendant may waive his right to appeal if the waiver is
knowing and voluntary. United States v. Brown, 232 F.3d 399, 402
(4th Cir. 2000); United States v. Marin, 961 F.2d 493, 496 (4th
Cir. 1992). Our review of Everhart’s guilty plea hearing, conducted
according to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure,
discloses that Everhart’s waiver of his appeal right was knowing
and voluntary. Pursuant to Anders, this court has reviewed the
record for reversible error and found none. We therefore affirm
the conviction and dismiss the appeal of the sentence. This court
2
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 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 IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART
3