UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4695
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MAKENANNON ALULA NEWSOME, a/k/a John Elvis Hughes,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Louise W. Flanagan,
Chief District Judge. (4:09-cr-00104-FL-1)
Submitted: February 24, 2011 Decided: February 28, 2011
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States
Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Makenannon Alula Newsome, a/k/a John Elvis Hughes,
pled guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement to possession
with intent to distribute fifty grams or more of cocaine base
(“crack”). Newsome was sentenced to 140 months of imprisonment
within his properly-calculated advisory Sentencing Guidelines
range of 135 to 168 months established at his sentencing
hearing. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there are
no meritorious grounds for appeal, but raising the following
issue: whether the district court imposed an unreasonable
sentence when it sentenced Newsome based on a 100:1 crack-powder
ratio. The Government has filed a motion to dimiss. For the
reasons that follow, we dismiss in part, and affirm in part.
We cannot address counsel’s Anders issue or the
sentencing issue raised by Newsome in his pro se supplemental
brief, however, because Newsome waived his right to appeal from
his sentence. The record reveals that Newsome waived his right
to appeal his sentence, see United States v. Poindexter, 492
F.3d 263, 270 (4th Cir. 2007), this waiver was reviewed at his
plea hearing, see United States v. Broughton-Jones, 71 F.3d
1143, 1146 (4th Cir. 1995), and he knowingly and voluntarily
waived his right to appeal his sentence, except for
circumstances not raised in this appeal. United States v.
2
Johnson, 410 F.3d 137, 151 (4th Cir. 2005); United States v.
Wessells, 936 F.2d 165, 167-68 (4th Cir. 1991). Thus, despite
de novo review, United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th
Cir. 2005) (stating review standard), we find that Newsome
validly waived his right to appeal. Accordingly, we grant the
Government’s motion to dismiss the appeal of Newsome’s sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm Newsome’s conviction. This court requires
that counsel inform Newsome, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Newsome 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 Newsome. 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