UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-5150
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DWAYNE EDWARD COE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L.
Voorhees, District Judge. (5:06-cr-00037-RLV-DCK-5)
Submitted: July 30, 2009 Decided: August 3, 2009
Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lisa S. Costner, LISA S. COSTNER, P.A., Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United
States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Dwayne Edward Coe appeals from his conviction and
240-month sentence entered pursuant to his guilty plea to a drug
conspiracy. On appeal, counsel has filed an brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there
are no meritorious issues for appeal in light of Coe’s plea
agreement waiver of appeal rights. 1 Coe has filed a pro se
supplemental brief, raising two issues. We affirm.
Coe first asserts that the district court erred in
enhancing his sentence based upon a prior conviction that was
neither charged in the indictment nor proven beyond a reasonable
doubt. However, Coe concedes that his argument is barred by
current law. See United States v. Cheek, 415 F.3d 349, 351-54
(4th Cir. 2005). Next, Coe contends that he should have been
warned that violation of his pre-trial release would result in
both the enhancement of his sentence with prior convictions and
the Government’s decision not to file a motion for a substantial
assistance departure. However, Coe was informed that violation
of the conditions of his release could result in an additional
sentence of imprisonment, he agreed in his plea agreement that
1
Because the Government does not move to dismiss this
appeal based upon Coe’s waiver, we decline to enforce it.
2
he was subject to a mandatory life sentence, 2 and he agreed that
any substantial assistance departure was at the sole discretion
of the Government. Thus, while Coe cites no relevant precedent
requiring such notice, Coe suffered no prejudice from any error.
Pursuant to Anders, we have reviewed the record for
any meritorious issues. Finding none, we affirm Coe’s
conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel
inform Coe, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme
Court of the United States for further review. If Coe 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 Coe.
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
2
Based on Coe’s assistance, the Government withdrew its
notice of two of Coe’s prior convictions. The Government’s
resulting reliance on just one prior conviction lowered the
mandatory minimum sentence from life to 240 months.
3