United States v. Bonner

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,  Plaintiff-Appellee, v.  No. 00-4297 ANTHONY BONNER, a/k/a Tone, Defendant-Appellant.  Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CR-98-424) Submitted: November 9, 2000 Decided: March 2, 2001 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. COUNSEL Anton J. S. Keating, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Lynne A. Battaglia, United States Attorney, Angela R. White, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). 2 UNITED STATES v. BONNER OPINION PER CURIAM: Anthony Bonner pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine and crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 846 (West 1999). The district court sentenced Bonner to a 122-month prison sentence to be followed by five years of super- vised release. Bonner appeals, challenging the calculation of his crim- inal history category. He asserts that the district court clearly erred in finding that he committed the instant offense while on probation for a state conviction, see U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4A1.1(d) (1998), and that the instant offense occurred less than two years after his release from confinement. See USSG § 4A1.1(e). The Govern- ment has moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that Bonner waived his right to appeal. We grant the Government’s motion and dismiss the appeal. In his plea agreement, Bonner waived the right to appeal any sen- tence imposed, including any issues that relate to the establishment of the guideline range, reserving only the right to appeal an upward or downward departure. The district court accepted Bonner’s guilty plea at a hearing conducted in accordance with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. We have reviewed Bonner’s plea agree- ment and the Rule 11 colloquy and find that Bonner made a knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to appeal. United States v. Broughton-Jones, 71 F.3d 1143, 1146 (4th Cir. 1995) (providing stan- dard). Accordingly, we grant the Government’s motion and dismiss the appeal. 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