UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4879
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
KATHY COURTRIGHT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr.,
District Judge. (CR-02-70)
Submitted: October 1, 2004 Decided: October 28, 2004
Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Brian J. Kornbrath, Federal Public Defender, Clarksburg, West
Virginia, for Appellant. Thomas E. Johnston, United States
Attorney, Randolph J. Bernard, Robert H. McWilliams, Jr., Assistant
United States Attorneys, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Kathy Courtright appeals her conviction and 188-month
sentence following her guilty plea to a single count of aiding and
abetting the distribution of crack cocaine within 1000 feet of a
school zone, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 (2000) and 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(a)(1), 860 (2000). Finding no error, we affirm.
In her appeal, filed pursuant to Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), counsel for Courtright asserts there are no
non-frivolous issue for appeal but raises first the question of
whether Courtright’s plea was made knowingly and voluntarily. We
have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court’s
plea colloquy with Courtright fully complied with Fed. R. Crim. P.
11. Accordingly, we deny this claim.
Courtright’s remaining issue questions the district
court’s application of a career offender enhancement pursuant to
U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4B1.1 (2002). Criminal
defendants may waive their statutory right to direct appeal as part
of a plea agreement with the Government. United States v. Marin,
961 F.2d 493, 496 (4th Cir. 1992). Courtright’s plea agreement
clearly waives her right to challenge either her sentence or its
calculation as long as it does not exceed the maximum sentence
provided by law. Because Courtright’s sentence does not exceed the
statutory maximum, and because we find that Courtright entered her
plea knowingly and voluntarily with full knowledge of the effect of
- 2 -
the waiver provision in the plea agreement, we conclude that she is
precluded from raising this claim on appeal.
Finding no meritorious issues upon our review of the
record, we affirm the judgment of the district court.* We also
deny Courtright’s motion to relieve and substitute her attorney.
This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of
her 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
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
*
Courtright has filed a motion to file a supplemental brief
addressing the issues raised by the Supreme Court’s recent ruling
in Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). We grant her
motion and deem it to provide the supplemental argument regarding
the effects of Blakely. We have considered the applicability of
Blakely to the federal sentencing guidelines and have concluded
that their application by a district court comports with the
requirements of the Sixth Amendment. See United States v. Hammoud,
___ F.3d ___, 2004 WL 2005622, at *28 (4th Cir. Sept. 8, 2004) (No.
03-4253) (en banc); United States v. Hammoud, 378 F.3d 426 (4th
Cir. 2004) (order), petition for cert. filed, ___ U.S.L.W. ___
(U.S. Aug. 6, 2004) (No. 04-193). We therefore deny relief on
Courtright’s Blakely claim and deny her motion to hold her appeal
in abeyance.
- 3 -