United States of America v. Charles J. Lewis, Iii

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4469
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CHARLES J. LEWIS, III,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. David A. Faber, Chief
District Judge. (CR-01-24)
Submitted: January 21, 2004 Decided: February 23, 2004
Before WIDENER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John G. Hackney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Thomas
E. Johnston, United States Attorney, Thomas O. Mucklow, Assistant
United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Charles J. Lewis, III, appeals his 188-month sentence for
distribution of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1) (2000). Lewis asserts he is not bound by his plea
agreement’s waiver of appellate rights, and that the waiver’s scope
does not extend to his appellate challenge to the sentencing
court’s determinations. We review these claims de novo. United
States v. General, 278 F.3d 389, 399 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 122
S. Ct. 2643 (2002); United States v. Marin, 961 F.2d 493, 496 (4th
Cir. 1992). Lewis’ claims are meritless. Lewis fails to establish
any defect in his plea agreement waiver of appellate rights. See
generally United States v. Attar, 38 F.3d 727, 731-32 (4th Cir.
1994). Lewis’ remaining claims are foreclosed by his waiver of
appellate rights. United States v. Willis, 992 F.2d 489, 490 (4th
Cir. 1993). To the extent they are reviewable, they are meritless.
Lewis has not established the sentencing court violated his due
process rights, United States v. Ellis, 975 F.2d 1061, 1067 (4th
Cir. 1992); United States v. Williams, 880 F.2d 804, 805-06 (4th
Cir. 1989), or miscalculated his criminal history. U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual § 4A1.1(d) (2002).

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
Accordingly, we affirm Lewis’ conviction and sentence.
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

-- 3 of 3 --