US v. Makenannon Newsome

Filing 920110228

<

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4695

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)

Submitted:

February 24, 2011

Decided:

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Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

hearing.

appeal,

brief

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.

circumstances

appeal.

United

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

petition review.

States be

for

further but

requests

petition

filed,

counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from

representation.

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

3