Case ID: f-appx_60/html/0963-01.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. Isiah LAND, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 02-4573.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted April 17, 2003.
    Decided April 23, 2003.
    Jon M. Babineau, Saunders, Babineau & Brewbaker, L.L.C., Suffolk, Virginia, for Appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, James Ashford Metcalfe, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Isiah Land pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2)-(e) (2000). Land was sentenced to 235 months incarceration. Land’s attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), asserting the district court erred in denying Land a downward departure based on Land’s physical condition. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines §§ 5H1.4, K2.0 (2000) (p.s.). The district court acknowledged its authority to grant a downward departure, but chose not to do so. Accordingly, this claim is not renewable on appeal. United States v. Bayerle, 898 F.2d 28, 31 (4th Cir.1990).

Land has filed a pro se brief asserting his guilty plea was involuntary. We review this claim de novo. United States v. Damon, 191 F.3d 561, 564 n. 2 (4th Cir.1999). This claim is meritless. Land’s plea colloquy statements establish that he voluntarily pleaded guilty. United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 119 (4th Cir.1991). Land’s remaining challenges to his counsel’s assistance, and to the district court’s determination of his criminal history and sentence, are foreclosed by his plea agreement waiver of appellate rights. United States v. Willis, 992 F.2d 489, 490 (4th Cir.1993).

Accordingly, we affirm Land’s conviction and sentence. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and find no other meritorious issues for appeal. 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 such a petition be filed, but 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 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 in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.