UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

No. 97-4163

CARL LAMONT DEAN, a/k/a Jermaine

Dean,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.

Richard L. Voorhees, Chief District Judge.

(CR-96-46-V)

Submitted: November 12, 1997

Decided: December 5, 1997

Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Randolph Marshall Lee, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant.

Mark T. Calloway, United States Attorney, Robert J. Higdon, Jr.,

Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Carl Lamont Dean pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent

to distribute cocaine and cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§§ 841(a)(1), 846 (1994). As part of his plea agreement he waived his

right to appeal his conviction and sentence. After acknowledging that

Dean was not yet entitled to a reduction in his sentence based upon

substantial assistance, the district court sentenced Dean to 240 months

imprisonment, the lowest sentence in the applicable guidelines range,

to be followed by a ten-year term of supervised release. Dean appeals

his sentence.

Dean's counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), noting that the district court declined

to depart downward from the applicable sentence but stating that, in

his view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Dean's counsel

provided him with a copy of the Anders brief and informed him of his

right to file a pro se supplemental brief; despite receiving an extension of time he has not filed a pro se brief. Because Dean expressly

waived his right to appeal, we dismiss the appeal.

The transcript of Dean's Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing reveals that

he understood the full significance of the waiver provision of his plea

agreement.1 When the district court specifically asked Dean about the

waiver, he stated that he understood he was waiving his right to

appeal. The plea agreement provided that the waiver did not apply to

claims to prosecutorial misconduct or ineffective assistance of counsel. However, Dean does not raise either of these claims, nor does our

_________________________________________________________________

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

1995) (holding that a waiver is valid if it is knowing and intelligent).

 2
review of the record disclose facts which would support such claims.

Accordingly, we find that Dean's waiver is knowing and intelligent.2

We dismiss the appeal. Further, we deny Dean's motion to compel

his counsel to provide all documents that he alleges are relevant to his

appeal. Dean has not demonstrated a particularized need or raised any

specific issues in regard to the requested documents, and all documents relevant to this appeal are a part of the record on 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 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

_________________________________________________________________

2 See United States v. Wessells , 936 F.2d 165, 167 (4th Cir. 1991);

United States v. Wiggins, 905 F.2d 51, 53 (4th Cir. 1990).

 3