UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-5064

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

GEORGE GRAHAM, III, a/k/a G, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey, 

Chief District Judge. (3:08-cr-00049-JPB-DJJ-2) 

Submitted: May 28, 2009 Decided: June 2, 2009 

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam 

opinion. 

Jacob A. Manning, DINSMORE & SHOHL, LLP, Wheeling, West 

Virginia, for Appellant. Thomas Oliver Mucklow, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

 George Graham, III, pled guilty pursuant to a written 

plea agreement to possession with intent to distribute 9.03 

grams of cocaine base and was sentenced to 46 months of 

imprisonment. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to 

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

are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but raising one issue: 

whether the district court plainly erred by accepting Graham’s 

guilty plea. Despite notice, Graham has not filed a pro se 

supplemental brief. For the reasons that follow, we dismiss in 

part and affirm in part. 

 There is a pending motion by the Government to dismiss 

the appeal. We grant the motion in part, noting that the record 

reveals that Graham knowingly and voluntarily waived his right 

to appeal his sentence in his plea agreement and that this 

waiver was specifically reviewed by the magistrate judge at 

Graham’s plea hearing in compliance with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11. 

United States v. Broughton-Jones, 71 F.3d 1143, 1146 (4th Cir. 

1995); United States v. Marin, 961 F.2d 493, 496 (4th Cir. 

1992). Moreover, we find no exceptions to the waiver rule as 

the sentence imposed was not in excess of the statutory maximum, 

United States v. General, 278 F.3d 389, 399-400 (4th Cir. 2002), 

there is no evidence that the sentence was based on a 

constitutionally impermissible factor, Marin, 961 F.2d at 496, 

2 
3 

and there is no indication that the proceedings were conducted 

in violation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. United 

States v. Attar, 38 F.3d 727, 732-33 (4th Cir. 1994). 

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal of Graham’s sentence. 

 In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire 

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for 

appeal. Accordingly, we affirm Graham’s conviction. 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 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 

presented in the materials before the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED IN PART;

AFFIRMED IN PART