United States of America v. GEORGE GRAHAM, III, a/k/a G

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-5064
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
GEORGE GRAHAM, III, a/k/a G,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey,
Chief District Judge. (3:08-cr-00049-JPB-DJJ-2)
Submitted: May 28, 2009 Decided: June 2, 2009
Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Jacob A. Manning, DINSMORE & SHOHL, LLP, Wheeling, West
Virginia, for Appellant. Thomas Oliver Mucklow, Assistant
United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

PER CURIAM:
George Graham, III, pled guilty pursuant to a written
plea agreement to possession with intent to distribute 9.03
grams of cocaine base and was sentenced to 46 months of
imprisonment. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there
are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but raising one issue:
whether the district court plainly erred by accepting Graham’s
guilty plea. Despite notice, Graham has not filed a pro se
supplemental brief. For the reasons that follow, we dismiss in
part and affirm in part.
There is a pending motion by the Government to dismiss
the appeal. We grant the motion in part, noting that the record
reveals that Graham knowingly and voluntarily waived his right
to appeal his sentence in his plea agreement and that this
waiver was specifically reviewed by the magistrate judge at
Graham’s plea hearing in compliance with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11.
United States v. Broughton-Jones, 71 F.3d 1143, 1146 (4th Cir.
1995); United States v. Marin, 961 F.2d 493, 496 (4th Cir.
1992). Moreover, we find no exceptions to the waiver rule as
the sentence imposed was not in excess of the statutory maximum,
United States v. General, 278 F.3d 389, 399-400 (4th Cir. 2002),
there is no evidence that the sentence was based on a
constitutionally impermissible factor, Marin, 961 F.2d at 496,
2

-- 2 of 3 --

3
and there is no indication that the proceedings were conducted
in violation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. United
States v. Attar, 38 F.3d 727, 732-33 (4th Cir. 1994).
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal of Graham’s sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. Accordingly, we affirm Graham’s conviction. This court
requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If the client requests that a petition be
filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be
frivolous, then counsel may move this court for leave to
withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that
a copy thereof was served on the client. 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 of 3 --