UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4126
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MINNIE HERRING,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CR-
04-209-PJM)
Submitted: August 17, 2005 Decided: September 7, 2005
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael D. Montemarano, MICHAEL D. MONTEMARANO, P.A., Elkridge,
Maryland, for Appellant. Allen F. Loucks, United States Attorney,
Stuart A. Berman, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt,
Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Minnie Herring appeals her sentence following a guilty
plea to theft of government funds in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641
(2000). In light of the valid appellate waiver provisions in her
plea agreement, we dismiss the appeal.
Herring made a knowing and voluntary decision to forego
her right to appeal in her plea agreement, see United States v.
Broughton-Jones, 71 F.3d 1143, 1146 (4th Cir. 1995), and the
district court properly reviewed the waiver provisions with her at
her plea hearing. See United States v. Wessells, 936 F.2d 165,
167-68 (4th Cir. 1991); United States v. Wiggins, 905 F.2d 51, 53-
54 (4th Cir. 1990). Under these circumstances, we find Herring has
waived her right to appeal her sentence.
The Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Booker,
125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), does not alter our decision. See United
States v. Johnson, 410 F.3d 137 (4th Cir. 2005) (“[P]ost-plea legal
changes to applicable penalties do not provide a basis for
upsetting a guilty plea.”); United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162,
169-70 (4th Cir. 2005) (holding that Booker does not render an
otherwise valid appellate waiver unknowing or involuntary).
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. We also deny
Herring’s motion to remand for resentencing. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
- 2 -
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -