United States v. Rich

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4107
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
OTIS RICH, a/k/a O,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District
Judge. (1:08-cr-00411-WDQ-5)
Submitted: September 24, 2009 Decided: October 16, 2009
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Sicilia Chinn Englert, LAWLOR & ENGLERT, LLC, Greenbelt,
Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States
Attorney, Jason M. Weinstein, Assistant United States Attorney,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Otis Rich pled guilty pursuant to a written plea
agreement to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and
to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006). In accordance with the negotiated term
of imprisonment detailed in the plea agreement, see Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C) (permitting parties to agree to a specific
sentence that is binding on the district court upon acceptance
of the plea agreement), Rich was sentenced by the district court
to 188 months’ imprisonment.
Appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which she asserts there are
no meritorious issues for appeal but questions the adequacy of
the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing and the reasonableness of the
sentence. Rich was notified of his right to file a pro se
supplemental brief, but he has not done so. The Government
asserts that the court fully complied with Rule 11 and seeks
dismissal of the sentencing issue based on the appeal waiver
provision in Rich’s plea agreement.
Upon review of the plea agreement and the transcript
of the Rule 11 hearing, we conclude that Rich knowingly and
voluntarily waived his right to appeal his sentence. Further,
because the sentencing issue raised by appellate counsel clearly
falls within the scope of the waiver, the terms of the agreement
2
will be enforced. Accordingly, we dismiss the sentencing issue.
However, because the appeal waiver pertains only to Rich’s
sentence, we have reviewed the conviction pursuant to our
obligation under Anders. As we have found no meritorious issues
for appeal, we affirm Rich’s conviction.
This court requires that counsel inform her 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.
DISMISSED IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART
3