Case ID: f-appx_186/html/0356-01.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. Lynell LAWS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 06-4060.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: June 22, 2006.
    Decided: June 28, 2006.
    Sol Z. Rosen, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Chuck Rosenberg, United States Attorney, Michael J. Frank, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Lynell Laws pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute fifty grams or more of cocaine base (“crack”), in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) & 846 (2000). The district court sentenced Laws to 179 months imprisonment. He now seeks to appeal, asserting that the district court did not expressly consider all the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2000) factors and that his sentence is unreasonable. The Government asserts that, in his plea agreement, Laws validly waived the right to appeal his conviction and sentence. We agree with the Government and dismiss the appeal.

In his plea agreement, Laws “waive[d] the right to appeal the conviction and any sentence within the statutory maximum ... on any ground whatsoever.” A defendant may waive the right to appeal if that waiver is knowing and intelligent. See United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 169-73 (4th Cir.2005); United States v. Brown, 232 F.3d 399, 402-03 (4th Cir.2000). Laws does not challenge the validity of his plea or the voluntariness of his appeal waiver. Rather, he challenges his sentence. These issues fall squarely within the waiver. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED.