UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-4238

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JESSYE WAYNE POWELL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, 

Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:06-cr-00189-RJC-1)

Submitted: July 14, 2010 Decided: July 26, 2010

Before SHEDD and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Steven T. Meier, MEIER LAW, Charlotte, North Carolina, for 

Appellant. Amy E. Ray, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, 

Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jessye Wayne Powell appeals his 262 month sentence for 

conspiracy to distribute and possess marijuana, in violation of 

21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A), b(1)(D), and 846 (2006), and 

conspiracy to launder money, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) 

(2006). Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), contending that there 

are no meritorious issues on appeal, but arguing that the 

district court “erred in denying Mr. Powell’s motion to strike 

the Government’s information.”1

Powell’s counsel contends that the district court 

erred in denying his motion to strike the Government’s 21 U.S.C. 

§ 851 (2006) information at sentencing, on the grounds that the 

information was no longer effective, as the Government failed to 

refile the information after the filing of its second 

superseding indictment. Questions regarding the adequacy of a 

Powell has filed a pro se 

supplemental brief, in which he argues that the district court 

erred in finding that he qualified as a career offender. The 

Government has declined to file a brief. We affirm.

 1 Counsel also argues that this claim is not encompassed by 

the waiver of appellate rights contained in Powell’s plea 

agreement. We need not evaluate the scope of Powell’s appellate 

waiver, however, as the Government has declined to argue for its 

enforcement. See United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th 

Cir. 2005).
3

21 U.S.C. § 851 notice are reviewed de novo. United States v. 

Jackson

Powell’s contention is without merit. Every circuit 

to have addressed this issue in a published decision has held 

that the government need not refile its § 851 information after 

the filing of a superseding indictment. 

, 544 F.3d 1176, 1185 (11th Cir. 2008).

See United States v. 

Dickerson, 514 F.3d 60, 64 n.3 (1st Cir. 2008) (noting that the 

prosecution need not file a second § 851 information after a 

superseding indictment); United States v. Cooper, 461 F.3d 850, 

853 (7th Cir. 2006) (same); United States v. Kamerud, 326 F.3d 

1008, 1014 (8th Cir. 2003) (same); United States v. Wright, 932 

F.3d 868, 882 (10th Cir. 1991) (same), overruled on other 

grounds by United States v. Flowers

We have reviewed the issues raised in Powell’s pro se 

supplemental brief and found them to be unavailing. 

Additionally, we have reviewed the entire record in accordance 

with 

, 464 F.3d 1127, 1130 (10th 

Cir. 2006). Accordingly, we reject Powell’s contention.

Anders,2

 2 Though Powell waived his right to appeal, the Government 

has not sought enforcement of the waiver. Accordingly, this 

court may conduct its review pursuant to Anders. United 

States v. Poindexter, 492 F.3d 263, 271 (4th Cir. 2007) (stating 

that, if Anders brief is filed in case with appeal waiver, 

Government’s failure to respond “allow[s] this court to perform 

the required Anders review”).

and found there are no meritorious issues on 

appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district 
4

court. We require 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. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

addressed in the materials before the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED