UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4852
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
THANH HUU NGUYEN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge.
(CR-02-271)
Submitted: September 27, 2005 Decided: September 29, 2005
Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anthony D. Martin, ANTHONY D. MARTIN, P.C., Greenbelt, Maryland,
for Appellant. Thomas M. DiBiagio, United States Attorney, Andrew
G. W. Norman, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Thanh Huu Nguyen appeals the district court’s judgment
sentencing him to 109 months in prison following his guilty plea,
pursuant to a plea agreement,* to one count of conspiracy to
distribute and possess with intent to distribute in excess of 100
kilograms of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000). In
his appeal, filed pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), counsel for Nguyen asserts there are no non-frivolous
issues for appeal. Although concluding that such allegations lack
merit, counsel asserts that Nguyen received ineffective assistance
of counsel. Nguyen also filed a pro se supplemental brief
asserting that his sentence violated Blakely v. Washington, 542
U.S. 296 (2004). Because our review of the record discloses no
reversible error, we affirm Nguyen’s conviction and sentence.
A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is
ordinarily not cognizable on direct review unless counsel’s
ineffectiveness is conclusively established on the record. United
States v. Martinez, 136 F.3d 972, 979 (4th Cir. 1998). We find the
evidence does not support such a finding. We further find that
*
Nguyen’s plea agreement contained an appellate waiver in
which he,
waive[d] all rights conferred by 18 U.S.C. § 3742 to
appeal whatever sentence is imposed, including any issues
that relate to the establishment of the guideline range,
reserving only the right to appeal from an upward or
downward departure from the guideline range established
at sentencing.
- 2 -
Nguyen was advised of the nature of the charge against him, the
potential punishment, and the rights he was waiving by entering a
plea of guilty, and he knowingly and intelligently waived those
rights and pled guilty. Thus, Nguyen’s appellate waiver forecloses
any argument that his sentence, issued under the mandatory
guidelines system, was unconstitutional. See United States v.
Blick, 408 F.3d 162 (4th Cir. 2005)
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm Nguyen’s conviction and sentence. We
deny both Nguyen’s motion to have counsel relieved and counsel’s
motion to withdraw. 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 -