UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4964
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSHUA GERILL RICHARDSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,
District Judge. (1:06-cr-00477-NCT)
Submitted: July 29, 2008 Decided: November 3, 2008
Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, William S. Trivette,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Apellant. Michael A. DeFranco, Assistant United States Attorney,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Joshua Gerill Richardson appealed his convictions for
possession with intent to distribute cocaine base and possession of
a firearm by a convicted felon and his resulting 188-month
sentence. On appeal, his attorney filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there were
no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether
Richardson’s sentence was reasonable. The Government moved to
dismiss the appeal based on Richardson’s waiver of appellate rights
in his plea agreement. We dismissed the appeal in part, including
the issue raised in the Anders brief, but we noted that the waiver
reserved Richardson’s right to appeal his sentence based on certain
enumerated claims. Thus, we denied the motion to dismiss as to
these claims, permitting a pro se supplemental brief and Anders
review of any unwaived issues. Richardson did not file a pro se
supplemental brief.
In his plea agreement, Richardson agreed to waive certain
rights, including his
right to appeal the conviction and whatever sentence is
imposed on any ground . . . excepting the defendant’s
right to appeal based upon grounds of (1) ineffective
assistance of counsel, (2) prosecutorial misconduct not
known to the defendant at the time of the defendant’s
guilty plea, (3) a sentence in excess of the statutory
maximum, and (4) a sentence based on an unconstitutional
factor, such as race, religion, ethnic origin and gender.
- 2 -
We have carefully reviewed the record, and we conclude that there
are no meritorious issues for appeal falling within Richardson’s
reserved rights of appeal.
Accordingly, we affirm Richardson’s 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
- 3 -