UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4149
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
GEORGE ALFRED TIMBERS, a/k/a Chicken George,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. W. Craig Broadwater,
District Judge. (CR-01-24-3)
Submitted: September 22, 2004 Decided: November 2, 2004
Before TRAXLER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael S. Santa Barbara, OLLAR & SANTA BARBARA, Martinsburg, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
George Alfred Timbers pled guilty to distribution of
crack, and aiding and abetting the same, in violation of 21
U.S.C.A. § 841 (West 1999 & Supp. 2004) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (2000).
The district court sentenced him to 101 months in prison. Under
the terms of his plea agreement, Timbers waived the right to appeal
any sentence within the statutory maximum. Timbers’ attorney has
filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), stating that in his opinion there were no meritorious
issues for appeal, but questioning whether the district court
complied with the requirements of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of
Criminal Procedure in accepting Timbers’ guilty plea. Timbers has
been informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but
he has not done so. We affirm Timbers’ conviction and sentence.
In his plea agreement, Timbers waived his right to appeal
his sentence. A defendant may waive his right to appeal if the
waiver is knowing and voluntary. United States v. Brown, 232 F.3d
399, 403 (4th Cir. 2000); United States v. Marin, 961 F.2d 493, 496
(4th Cir. 1992). Our review of the record discloses that Timbers’
waiver of his right to appeal his sentence was knowing and
voluntary. Moreover, we find that Timbers’ plea hearing was
adequate under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
- 2 -
appeal. We therefore affirm Timbers’ 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.
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 -