UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4316
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
WILLIE ELLIS GREEN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:04-cr-00360-BO)
Submitted: July 6, 2007 Decided: August 15, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Deborrah L. Newton, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. George
E. B. Holding, Acting United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes,
Christine Witcover Dean, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Willie Ellis Green appeals his convictions and 219-month
sentence after his guilty plea to seven counts of interfering with
interstate commerce by robbery, and aiding and abetting robbery, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951, 2 (2000), and one count of
brandishing a firearm, and aiding and abetting brandishing, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c), 2 (2000).
Green’s first argument on appeal is that the district
court violated his Sixth Amendment rights by enhancing his sentence
based on facts he did not admit in his plea agreement. The plea
agreement, however, included a waiver of Green’s right to appeal
the calculation of his advisory guideline range. We have reviewed
the record and conclude that Green’s argument falls within the
scope of the waiver, and therefore dismiss this portion of his
appeal. See United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168-69 (4th Cir.
2005).
Next, Green argues that the Government breached the plea
agreement by not fully advising the court of the extent of Green’s
cooperation, and by arguing for a brandishing enhancement on the
basis that Green personally brandished a firearm. Because Green
did not raise this objection at sentencing, our review is for plain
error. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732-37 (1993)
(discussing standard). We find that the Government did relate to
the court the nature of Green’s cooperation, and that the plea
- 2 -
agreement did not bar the Government from presenting evidence of
Green’s conduct. Accordingly, the district court did not plainly
err in not finding that the Government breached the plea agreement.
For these reasons, we affirm Green’s convictions and
dismiss the challenge to his sentence. 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 IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART
- 3 -