UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4504
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
WILLIAM M. STANLEY,
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-04-38)
Submitted: October 26, 2005 Decided: November 15, 2005
Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Brian J. Kornbrath, Federal Public Defender, Clarksburg, West
Virginia, for Appellant. Zelda Elizabeth Wesley, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
William M. Stanley appeals the district court’s order
sentencing him to 120 months’ imprisonment following his guilty
plea to a single count of dealing in explosive materials without a
license, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 842, 844 (2000). The
Government has moved to dismiss the appeal on the basis of a waiver
of appellate rights contained in its plea agreement with Stanley.
Stanley’s brief has been filed pursuant to Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), and counsel for Stanley claims the district
court erred in accepting Stanley’s plea and imposing sentence.
Addressing the Government’s motion first, this court’s
interpretation of Stanley’s plea agreement is guided by contract
law. United States v. McQueen, 108 F.3d 64, 66 (4th Cir. 1997).
In the instant matter, the waiver provision applies only to a
challenge to Stanley’s sentence: “the defendant knowingly waives
the right to appeal any sentence . . . on the grounds set forth in
Title 18, United States Code, Section 3742.” (J.A. at 9).
Although we conclude the waiver is enforceable to the extent
Stanley seeks to challenge his sentence, it does not preclude
Stanley from appealing his conviction. Accordingly, we grant the
Government’s motion as it applies to Stanley’s appeal of his
sentence and deny it as to Stanley’s challenge to his conviction.
Turning to Stanley’s claim regarding the voluntariness of
his plea, we have reviewed the transcript of the plea hearing and
- 2 -
have found no error. Because Stanley’s plea was knowingly and
voluntarily entered, the district court did not err in accepting
Stanley’s plea. Accordingly, we find no error in Stanley’s
conviction.
Finding no meritorious issues upon our review of the
record, we affirm Stanley’s conviction and dismiss the portion of
his appeal relating to his 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 IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
- 3 -