UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-4711
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
TIMOTHY J. EDENBURN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., District
Judge. (CR-02-24)
Submitted: June 6, 2003 Decided: June 26, 2003
Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Frank W. Dunham, Jr., Federal Public Defender, Larry M. Dash,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Norfolk, Virginia, for
Appellant. Laura P. Tayman, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Timothy J. Edenburn seeks to appeal his conviction and 64-
month sentence imposed pursuant to a guilty plea and written plea
agreement to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute MDMA
(ecstasy), in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846 (2000). The
Government has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. We grant the
Government’s motion to dismiss because Edenburn waived his right to
appeal his sentence in his written plea agreement, and the only
issue raised on appeal is a challenge to Edenburn’s sentence.
Further, the brief filed on Edenburn’s behalf pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), acknowledges that Edenburn’s
guilty plea was knowing and voluntary. Edenburn has failed to file
a pro se supplemental brief despite being notified of his
opportunity to do so.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. 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
2
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3