US v. Otis Rich
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. OTIS RICH, a/k/a O, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:08-cr-00411-WDQ-5)
September 24, 2009
October 16, 2009
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sicilia Chinn Englert, LAWLOR & ENGLERT, LLC, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Jason M. Weinstein, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Otis Rich pled guilty pursuant to a written plea
agreement to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006). of imprisonment detailed In accordance with the negotiated term in the plea agreement, see Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C) (permitting parties to agree to a specific sentence that is binding on the district court upon acceptance of the plea agreement), Rich was sentenced by the district court to 188 months' imprisonment. Appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which she asserts there are no meritorious issues for appeal but questions the adequacy of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing and the reasonableness of the sentence. Rich was notified of his right to file a pro se The Government
supplemental brief, but he has not done so.
asserts that the court fully complied with Rule 11 and seeks dismissal of the sentencing issue based on the appeal waiver provision in Rich's plea agreement. Upon review of the plea agreement and the transcript of the Rule 11 hearing, we conclude that Rich knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal his sentence. Further,
because the sentencing issue raised by appellate counsel clearly falls within the scope of the waiver, the terms of the agreement 2
will be enforced. However, sentence, because we
Accordingly, we dismiss the sentencing issue. the appeal waiver the pertains only to Rich's to our
obligation under Anders.
As we have found no meritorious issues
for appeal, we affirm Rich's conviction. This court requires that counsel inform her 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 We dispense with contentions the court are and
that a copy thereof was served on the client. oral argument because in the the facts and legal before
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?