Case ID: f-appx_619/html/0246-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kamel O’Meek TERRELL, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-4170.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Oct. 15, 2015.
    Decided: Oct. 19, 2015.
    Michael W. Patrick, Law Office of Michael W. Patrick, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Lisa B. Boggs, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Kamel O’Meek Terrell appeals his downward variance 120-month sentence, challenging the district court’s application of the career offender enhancement in the Sentencing Guidelines. Terrell asserts that the career offender Guideline is invalid because it has been expanded beyond the authority granted by Congress where, like here, the predicate offenses on which the district court relied in applying the Guideline are state — rather than federal-convictions.

Terrell raised this objection before the district court but unequivocally withdrew it at sentencing. Thus, he has waived appellate review of the issue. United States v. Robinson, 744 F.3d 293, 298 (4th Cir.) (“A party who identifies an issue, and then explicitly withdraws it, has waived the issue.” (internal quotation marks omitted)), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 225, 190 L.Ed.2d 170 (2014); see United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 733, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993) (“[Wjaiver is the intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Even assuming the error is not waived, but merely forfeited, Terrell acknowledges that our precedent forecloses his claim. See Olano, 507 U.S. at 732, 113 S.Ct. 1770 (discussing plain error standard).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.