UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 02-4404

REGINALD LUCAS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.

Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge.

(CR-01-205)

Submitted: March 25, 2003

Decided: April 23, 2003

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Vaughan S. Winborne, Jr., Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant.

John Eric Evenson, II, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh,

North Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 
OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Reginald Wayne Lucas pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy

to possess with intent to distribute more than fifty grams of crack

cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000). He was sentenced to

120 months in prison. Lucas now appeals. Counsel has filed a brief

in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating

that there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Lucas has filed a pro

se supplemental brief. We dismiss the appeal. 

In his pro se brief, Lucas contends that the district court should

have sentenced him to less than the ten-year statutory minimum to

which he was subject. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) (2000). This sentence was twenty years less than the maximum guideline sentence

(360 months) to which Lucas was exposed. 

Lucas pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement in which he

waived his right to appeal his sentence. Lucas reserved the right to

appeal from an upward departure from his guideline range and to

raise claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial

misconduct. At the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 colloquy, Lucas informed the

court, when asked, that he understood this waiver. 

"[A] waiver-of-appeal-rights provision in a valid plea agreement is

enforceable against the defendant so long as it is ‘the result of a

knowing and intelligent decision to forego an appeal.’" United States

v. Attar, 38 F.3d 727, 731 (4th Cir. 1994) (quoting United States v.

Wessells, 936 F.2d 165, 167 (4th Cir. 1991)). We review de novo the

validity of a waiver. United States v. Brown, 232 F.3d 399, 402-03

(4th Cir. 2000). 

After examining the record, we conclude that Lucas knowingly and

voluntarily pleaded guilty pursuant to the written plea agreement. By

pleading guilty, Lucas validly waived his right to appeal, except in

circumstances not present in this case. We therefore dismiss the

appeal. 

2 UNITED STATES v. LUCAS
As required by Anders, we have independently reviewed the record

in this case and find no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore

dismiss the 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 of the motion 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 the decisional process.

DISMISSED

UNITED STATES v. LUCAS 3