Case ID: f-appx_86/html/0657-02.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. Lee Richard JENKINS, a/k/a Lee Jenkins, a/k/a Richard Lee Jenkins, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 03-4516.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 12, 2004.
    Decided Feb. 10, 2004.
    
      Timothy M. Sirk, Keyser, West Virginia, for Appellant. Thomas E. Johnston, United States Attorney, Thomas O. Mucklow, Assistant United States Attorney, Martins-burg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM.

Lee Richard Jenkins pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000), and to distribution of crack cocaine within 1000 feet of a school, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 (2000); 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 860. Jenkins, in his plea agreement, waived his right to appeal or collaterally attack any sentence within the statutory maximum. He was sentenced to 78 months incarceration, 5 years of supervised release, and a $100 special assessment. Jenkins’ counsel has filed an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), asserting the sentencing court erred in assessing Jenkins’ criminal history. Jenkins was informed of his right to file a supplemental brief but did not do so.

We review the validity of a defendant’s waiver of appellate rights de novo. United States v. Marin, 961 F.2d 493, 496 (4th Cir.1992). Jenkins’ waiver is valid and his appeal is therefore meritless. United States v. Wiggins, 905 F.2d 51, 53 (4th Cir.1990); United States v. Wessells, 936 F.2d 165,168 (4th Cir.1991).

Accordingly, we affirm Jenkins’ convictions 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 that 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.

AFFIRMED