UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4516
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
LEE RICHARD JENKINS, a/k/a Lee Jenkins, a/k/a
Richard Lee Jenkins,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. W. Craig Broadwater,
District Judge. (CR-01-24)
Submitted: January 12, 2004 Decided: February 10, 2004
Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Timothy M. Sirk, Keyser, West Virginia, for Appellant. Thomas E.
Johnston, United States Attorney, Thomas O. Mucklow, Assistant
United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Lee Richard Jenkins pleaded guilty to conspiracy to
possess with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 846 (2000), and to distribution of crack cocaine within
1000 feet of a school, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 (2000); 21
U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 860. Jenkins, in his plea agreement, waived
his right to appeal or collaterally attack any sentence within the
statutory maximum. He was sentenced to 78 months incarceration, 5
years of supervised release, and a $100 special assessment.
Jenkins’ counsel has filed an appeal under Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting the sentencing court erred in
assessing Jenkins’ criminal history. Jenkins was informed of his
right to file a supplemental brief but did not do so.
We review the validity of a defendant’s waiver of appellate
rights de novo. United States v. Marin, 961 F.2d 493, 496 (4th
Cir. 1992). Jenkins’ waiver is valid and his appeal is therefore
meritless. United States v. Wiggins, 905 F.2d 51, 53 (4th Cir.
1990); United States v. Wessells, 936 F.2d 165, 168 (4th Cir.
1991).
Accordingly, we affirm Jenkins’ convictions and sentence. In
accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this
case and find no other 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
- 2 -
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.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -