United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT May 16, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
No. 04-30093 Clerk
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DERRICK SMITH, also known as Derek Anthony Smith,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
No. 02-CR-385-ALL-K
--------------------
Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Derrick Smith, proceeding pro se, appeals his guilty-plea
conviction and sentence for being a felon in possession of a fire-
arm and possession with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion
should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circum-
stances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
No. 04-30093
-2-
cocaine base. Pursuant to a stipulated sentence in his plea
agreement, Smith received a sentence of 327 months of imprisonment.
Smith alleges that his retained counsel was ineffective.
Although this court generally will not entertain claims of in-
effective assistance on direct appeal, see United States v. Bounds,
943 F.2d 541, 544 (5th Cir. 1991), the record is sufficiently
developed to dispose of Smith’s claims.
Smith first asserts that if counsel had informed him that the
government was seeking to enhance his sentence as a career
offender, he would not have pleaded guilty. As long as the defen-
dant understood the length of time he might possibly receive,
however, he was aware of the plea’s consequences. United States v.
Santa Lucia, 991 F.2d 179, 180 (5th Cir. 1993). Smith was informed
during rearraignment of both the maximum possible sentence and the
stipulated sentence to which he had agreed in his plea agreement.
He was thus informed of the consequences of his plea. Smith has
not established that counsel provided ineffective assistance or
that, but for the alleged ineffectiveness, he would have proceeded
to trial. See Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59 (1985). His plea
is valid.
Smith asserts that counsel was ineffective for failing (1) to
inform him that the government was seeking to enhance his sentence
as a career offender, (2) to investigate or challenge the
enhancement, (3) to review the PSR with him, and (4) to present his
No. 04-30093
-3-
objections. Smith also argues that the district court erroneously
found that he was subject to the career offender enhancement.
Smith may not raise these claims, because his plea agreement
generally waived the right to appeal his sentence. A defendant
must know that he had “a right to appeal his sentence and that he
was giving up that right.” United States v. Portillo, 18 F.3d 290,
292 (5th Cir. 1994) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). Because the district court plainly explained the waiver
provision at rearraignment and Smith stated he understood it, the
waiver provision is valid and bars our consideration of these
issues. Even if the waiver did not apply, however, Smith cannot
demonstrate any prejudice resulting from counsel’s alleged
deficiencies, because he received the sentence to which he had
stipulated.
Finally, Smith argues that counsel was ineffective for failing
to inform him of the 10-day period for filing a notice of appeal
and for failing to move to withdraw pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Assuming that counsel did fail to
inform Smith of the time limits, Smith was not prejudiced, because
he filed a timely pro se notice of appeal. In addition, Smith’s
retained counsel was not required to comply with Anders in order to
withdraw.
Smith’s motion for leave to file a supplemental brief is
DENIED.
AFFIRMED.