UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-5231
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
STEPHEN ARTHUR LACY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg,
District Judge. (1:04-cr-00040)
Submitted: November 21, 2006 Decided: November 28, 2006
Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William E. Loose, WILLIAM E. LOOSE, ATTORNEY AT LAW, P.A.,
Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C. F. Shappert,
United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, David Kenneth
Davis, Corey F. Ellis, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Stephen Arthur Lacy entered a guilty plea to obstruction
of commerce by robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951
(2000)(Count One), and brandishing a firearm during a crime of
violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2000)(Count Two). He
received a sentence of 204 months imprisonment on Count One and 84
months on Count Two to run consecutively.
Lacy’s counsel has filed a brief in accordance with
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that he has
concluded there are no meritorious issues for appeal and that Lacy
waived his right to appeal as part of his plea agreement except for
claims of ineffective assistance of counsel or prosecutorial
misconduct, and there are no such meritorious claims on appeal.
Lacy filed a pro se supplemental brief arguing that his appeal
waiver was invalid because it was entered prior to the Supreme
Court’s decisions in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004),
and United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), and that his
sentence exceeded that authorized by his guilty plea. Finding no
reversible error, we affirm.
Because counsel had not raised any specific issues in his
Anders brief, and in accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the
entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal.
- 2 -
We find Lacy’s claim in his pro se brief that his appeal
waiver was invalid meritless. A defendant may, in a valid plea
agreement, waive the right to appeal under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)
(2000). United States v. Wessells, 936 F.2d 165 (4th Cir. 1991).
“The validity of an appeal waiver depends on whether the defendant
knowingly and intelligently agreed to waive the right to appeal.”
United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 169 (4th Cir. 2005). Whether
a defendant has effectively waived the right to appeal is an issue
of law reviewed de novo. Id. The record establishes that Lacy
knowingly and intelligently waived his right to appeal. The waiver
is not rendered unenforceable based on the Supreme Court’s
subsequent opinion in Booker. See United States v. Johnson, 410
F.3d 137 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 461 (2005); Blick,
408 F.3d at 170-73.
Next, we find Lacy’s claim that his sentence exceeded that
authorized by his guilty plea is without merit. Lacy agreed as
part of his plea agreement that the appropriate guideline range was
262 to 327 months of imprisonment and he was sentenced to a total
combined sentence of 288 months of imprisonment, which is within
that range. Further, Lacy’s sentence was imposed consistent with
United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546 (4th Cir. 2005), and was
within the advisory guideline range and within the statutory
mandatory minimums and maximums.
- 3 -
Therefore, having found no meritorious issues for appeal,
we affirm Lacy’s convictions and sentence. This court requires
that counsel inform Lacy, in writing, of the right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Lacy
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 Lacy. 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
- 4 -