UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-5173
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANDREW LONNIE SCOTT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:07-cr-00144-F-1)
Submitted: May 28, 2009 Decided: June 16, 2009
Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Anne Margaret Hayes, Assistant United States
Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Andrew Lonnie Scott pled guilty pursuant to a written
plea agreement to possession of a firearm by a felon, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006), and he was sentenced
to ninety-six months’ imprisonment. Appellate counsel filed a
brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in
which he asserts there are no meritorious issues for appeal but
questions whether the district court erred in its application of
U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(b)(1)(A) (2007).
Scott was notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental
brief, but he did not do so. The Government moves to dismiss
the appeal, asserting the issue raised by counsel is precluded
by the waiver of appellate rights in Scott’s plea agreement.
Upon review of the plea agreement and the transcript
of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing, we conclude that Scott
knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal. Further,
because the issue raised by appellate counsel clearly falls
within the scope of the waiver, the terms of the agreement will
be enforced. Accordingly, we grant the Government’s motion to
dismiss the sentencing issue. However, because the appeal
waiver pertains only to Scott’s sentence, we have reviewed the
conviction pursuant to Anders. As we have found no meritorious
issues for appeal, we affirm Scott’s conviction.
2
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 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.
DISMISSED IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART
3