United States v. Groves , 193 F. App'x 206 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-5218
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
WANDA LYNNE GROVES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (CR-05-6)
Submitted: June 28, 2006 Decided: August 2, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
James R. Saunders, HARRINGTON, SAUNDERS & JONES, P.A., Greenville,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne Margaret Hayes, Assistant
United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Wanda Lynne Groves appeals her conviction and sentence of
200 months of imprisonment imposed after she pled guilty, pursuant
to a plea agreement, to one count of conspiracy to distribute and
possess with intent to distribute more than fifty grams of crack
cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846 (2000). On
appeal, counsel filed an Anders* brief, in which he states there
are no meritorious issues for appeal, but suggests that Groves’s
sentence is unreasonable. The Government has moved to dismiss
Groves’s appeal based upon a waiver of appellate rights in her plea
agreement.
We deny the Government’s motion to dismiss because the
waiver does not preclude our review of any errors in Groves’s
conviction that may be revealed by our review pursuant to Anders.
We conclude, however, that Groves waived the right to proceed with
the claim asserted in the Anders brief, and accordingly dismiss
that portion of her appeal.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm Groves’s conviction and sentence.
This court requires that counsel inform Groves, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Groves requests that a petition be filed, but
*
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
- 2 -
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 Groves. 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.
DISMISSED IN PART
AND AFFIRMED IN PART
- 3 -