Case ID: f-appx_88/html/0600-01.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. Charles J. LEWIS, III, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 03-4469.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 21, 2004.
    Decided Feb. 23, 2004.
    John G. Hackney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Thomas E. Johnston, United States Attorney, Thomas O. Muck-low, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before WIDENER, KING, 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    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.

Charles J. Lewis, III, appeals his 188-month sentence for distribution of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000). Lewis asserts he is not bound by his plea agreement’s waiver of appellate rights, and that the waiver’s scope does not extend to his appellate challenge to the sentencing court’s determinations. We review these claims de novo. United States v. General, 278 F.3d 389, 399 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 536 U.S. 950, 122 S.Ct. 2643, 153 L.Ed.2d 821 (2002); United States v. Marin, 961 F.2d 493, 496 (4th Cir.1992). Lewis’ claims are meritless. Lewis fails to establish any defect in his plea agreement waiver of appellate rights. See generally United States v. Attar, 38 F.3d 727, 731-32 (4th Cir.1994). Lewis’ remaining claims are foreclosed by his waiver of appellate rights. United States v. Willis, 992 F.2d 489, 490 (4th Cir.1993). To the extent they are renewable, they are meritless. Lewis has not established the sentencing court violated his due process rights, United States v. Ellis, 975 F.2d 1061, 1067 (4th Cir.1992); United States v. Williams, 880 F.2d 804, 805-06 (4th Cir.1989), or miscalculated his criminal history. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4Al.l(d) (2002).

Accordingly, we affirm Lewis’ conviction and sentence. 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 the decisional process.

AFFIRMED