UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4170
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KAMEL O’MEEK TERRELL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:14-cr-00330-TDS-1)
Submitted: October 15, 2015 Decided: October 19, 2015
Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael W. Patrick, LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL W. PATRICK, Chapel
Hill, North Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States
Attorney, Lisa B. Boggs, Assistant United States Attorney,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kamel O’Meek Terrell appeals his downward variance 120-
month sentence, challenging the district court’s application of
the career offender enhancement in the Sentencing Guidelines.
Terrell asserts that the career offender Guideline is invalid
because it has been expanded beyond the authority granted by
Congress where, like here, the predicate offenses on which the
district court relied in applying the Guideline are state—rather
than federal—convictions.
Terrell raised this objection before the district court but
unequivocally withdrew it at sentencing. Thus, he has waived
appellate review of the issue. United States v. Robinson, 744
F.3d 293, 298 (4th Cir.) (“A party who identifies an issue, and
then explicitly withdraws it, has waived the issue.” (internal
quotation marks omitted)), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 225 (2014);
see United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 733 (1993) (“[W]aiver
is the intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known
right.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Even assuming the
error is not waived, but merely forfeited, Terrell acknowledges
that our precedent forecloses his claim. See Olano, 507 U.S. at
732 (discussing plain error standard).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3