United States v. Harrington , 82 F. App'x 841 ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4512
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
SAMUEL BRISTOL HARRINGTON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District
Judge. (CR-02-72)
Submitted: November 24, 2003 Decided: December 18, 2003
Before WILLIAMS, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury,
Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Randall Stuart Galyon, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Samuel Bristol Harrington pled guilty to distributing 54.3
grams of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)
(2000). The district court sentenced Harrington to 298 months of
imprisonment, to be followed by a five-year term of supervised
release. (R. 17). In his plea agreement, Harrington waived the
right to appeal his conviction and sentence, except on the grounds
of ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial misconduct
unknown at the time of the guilty plea, and a sentence in excess of
the statutory maximum or based on an unconstitutional factor, such
as race, religion, ethnicity, or gender.
Harrington’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there were no
meritorious grounds for appeal but raising the issue of whether the
district court erred in sentencing Harrington to 298 months of
imprisonment. Harrington was advised of his right to file a pro se
supplemental brief but has declined to do so. We have reviewed the
record and conclude that Harrington knowingly and voluntarily
waived the right to appeal his sentence and that none of the
exceptions to Harrington’s waiver of his appellate rights are
applicable in this case. See United States v. Wessels, 936 F.2d
165, 168 (4th Cir. 1991); United States v. Wiggins, 905 F.2d 51, 53
(4th Cir. 1990).
2
In accordance with the requirements of Anders, we have
reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no
meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm Harrington’s
conviction and sentence. 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. 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