UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4279
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ANDRES URIBE CORTES, a/k/a Andria Uribe
Cortez,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Samuel G. Wilson, District
Judge. (CR-04-30051)
Submitted: June 30, 2006 Decided: July 18, 2006
Before WILKINSON, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Helen E. Phillips, Stanardsville, Virginia, for Appellant. John L.
Brownlee, United States Attorney, Donald Ray Wolthuis, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Andres Cortes appeals his conviction and 168-month
sentence imposed upon his guilty plea to conspiracy to possess with
intent to distribute cocaine, possession with intent to distribute
cocaine, and possession of a firearm by an illegal alien, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A) (2000) and 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(a)(l), 846 (2000). Counsel for Cortes has filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which she
states there are no meritorious issues for review, but presenting
the issue of whether Cortes’ plea was knowingly and voluntarily
entered. Although informed of his right to file a pro se
supplemental brief, Cortes has not done so.
The Government has filed a motion to dismiss Cortes’
appeal. Cortes’ plea agreement included a provision by which he
agreed to waive his right to appeal “any sentencing guidelines
factors or the Court’s application of the sentencing guidelines
factors to the facts of my case.” Cortes knowingly and voluntarily
agreed to this provision. We conclude that the appeal waiver is
valid and enforceable. Therefore, Cortes has waived his right to
appeal. See United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168 (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 grant the motion to dismiss Cortes’ appeal.
- 2 -
Counsel has moved to withdraw from further representation. We deny
the motion at this juncture. This court requires that counsel
inform Cortes, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme
Court of the United States for further review. If Cortes requests
that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition
would be frivolous, counsel may then move in this court for leave
to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that
a copy thereof was served on Cortes.
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.
DISMISSED
- 3 -