UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-4385
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
PRINCE ORWELL UWAEZUOKE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, Senior District Judge.
(CR-01-512)
Submitted: April 30, 2004 Decided: May 17, 2004
Before WIDENER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John D. Ash, Towson, Maryland, for Appellant. Thomas M. DiBiagio,
United States Attorney, Stephen M. Schenning, Assistant United
States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Prince Orwell Uwaezuoke pleaded guilty to bank fraud. In
his plea agreement, Uwaezuoke waived his right to appeal any
sentence within the guideline range and below the statutory
maximum. His twenty-seven month sentence satisfied both these
requirements. Uwaezuoke’s counsel has filed an appeal under
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that the
sentencing court erred in denying his motion for a downward
departure. Uwaezuoke 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). We conclude that Uwaezuoke’s waiver is valid,
and his appeal is therefore meritless. See United States v.
Wiggins, 905 F.2d 51, 53 (4th Cir. 1990). Accordingly, we affirm
Uwaezuoke’s 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 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
- 2 -
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.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -