UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4071
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
SEAN JAMES, a/k/a Stuffy,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief
District Judge. (CR-02-36)
Submitted: September 30, 2003 Decided: March 16, 2004
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stephen S. Murphy, LAW OFFICES OF S. SEAN MURPHY, L.C., Morgantown,
West Virginia, for Appellant. Thomas Edward Johnston, United
States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia; Zelda Elizabeth Wesley,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Clarksburg, West Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Sean James pled guilty to one count of distributing .67
grams of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1) &
(b)(1)(C) (West 1999 & Supp. 2003). The district court sentenced
him to 151 months in prison. James’ counsel has filed a brief in
accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating
that, in his view, there are no meritorious grounds for appeal.
However, he raises the issues of whether the district court erred
in attributing to James 150 to 500 grams of cocaine base as
relevant conduct for sentencing purposes and whether the district
court erred by denying counsel’s motion to withdraw. Although
notified of his right to do so, James has not filed a pro se
supplemental brief. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
James’ plea agreement contained a waiver of his right to
appeal his sentence. Whether a defendant validly waived his right
to appeal is a question of law, which this court reviews de novo.
United States v. Marin, 961 F.2d 493, 496 (4th Cir. 1992). A
waiver of a defendant’s right to appeal contained in a valid plea
agreement is enforceable if it is “the result of a knowing and
intelligent decision to forego the right to appeal.” United
States v. Wessells, 936 F.2d 165, 167 (4th Cir. 1991). We have
reviewed James’ plea agreement and the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing
and conclude that he knowingly and intelligently waived his right
- 2 -
to appeal his sentence. Consequently, the valid appeal waiver
precludes review of his sentencing issue.
James’ appeal waiver does not bar review of his claim
that the district court abused its discretion by denying counsel’s
motion to withdraw. In evaluating this issue, this Court must
consider: (1) the timeliness of the motion; (2) the adequacy of
the court’s inquiry; and (3) “whether the attorney/client conflict
was so great that it resulted in total lack of communication
preventing an adequate defense.” United States v. DeTemple, 162
F.3d 279, 288 (4th Cir. 1998) (quotation marks and citation
omitted); United States v. Johnson, 114 F.3d 435, 442 (4th Cir.
1997). Applying this standard to the facts of this case, we find
no abuse of discretion.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm James’ conviction and sentence. 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.
- 3 -
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.
AFFIRMED
- 4 -