US v. Makenannon Newsome
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MAKENANNON ALULA NEWSOME, a/k/a John Elvis Hughes, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief District Judge. (4:09-cr-00104-FL-1)
February 24, 2011
February 28, 2011
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Makenannon Alula Newsome, a/k/a John Elvis Hughes,
pled guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement to possession with intent to distribute fifty grams or more of cocaine base ("crack"). within range his of Newsome was sentenced to 140 months of imprisonment properly-calculated 135 On to 168 months counsel advisory Sentencing at his Guidelines sentencing pursuant to
established has filed a
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but raising the following issue: whether the district court imposed an unreasonable
sentence when it sentenced Newsome based on a 100:1 crack-powder ratio. The Government has filed a motion to dimiss. For the
reasons that follow, we dismiss in part, and affirm in part. We cannot address counsel's Anders issue or the
sentencing issue raised by Newsome in his pro se supplemental brief, however, because Newsome waived his right to appeal from his sentence. The record reveals that Newsome waived his right
to appeal his sentence, see United States v. Poindexter, 492 F.3d 263, 270 (4th Cir. 2007), this waiver was reviewed at his plea hearing, see United States v. Broughton-Jones, 71 F.3d
1143, 1146 (4th Cir. 1995), and he knowingly and voluntarily waived his right not to raised appeal in this 2 his sentence, except States for v.
Johnson, 410 F.3d 137, 151 (4th Cir. 2005); United States v. Wessells, 936 F.2d 165, 167-68 (4th Cir. 1991). Thus, despite
de novo review, United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating review standard), we find that Newsome
validly waived his right to appeal.
Accordingly, we grant the
Government's motion to dismiss the appeal of Newsome's sentence. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Newsome's conviction. that counsel the If inform Supreme Newsome Newsome, Court of in the that writing, United a This court requires of the right to
counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
Counsel's motion must state that a copy thereof We dispense with oral argument because
was served on Newsome.
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
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?