UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-5210

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

ERVIN WASHINGTON DANIELS, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, 

District Judge. (7:08-cr-00036-D-1) 

Submitted: December 17, 2009 Decided: December 23, 2009 

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam 

opinion. 

David L. Neal, Hillsborough, North Carolina, for Appellant. 

Anne Margaret Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, 

North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

 Ervin Washington Daniels pled guilty pursuant to a 

written plea agreement to one count of manufacturing child 

pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2251(a) (West Supp. 

2009). On appeal, counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there are no 

meritorious grounds for appeal, but raising the following issue: 

whether the district court imposed an unreasonable sentence by 

erring as a matter of law in the application of U.S. Sentencing 

Guidelines Manual § 2G2.1(b)(2)(B) (2008), failing to consider 

all the 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2009) factors, 

failing to adequately explain the sentence imposed, and treating 

the unreasonably high advisory Sentencing Guidelines range as 

presumptively reasonable. The Government has filed a motion to 

dismiss the appeal of Daniels’ sentence on the grounds of 

appellate waiver. For the reasons that follow, we dismiss the 

appeal of Daniels’ sentence and affirm his conviction. 

 We grant the Government’s motion to dismiss the appeal 

of Daniels’ sentence. See United States v. Marin, 961 F.2d 493, 

496 (4th Cir. 1992) (providing review standard). The record 

reveals that Daniels waived his right to appeal any sentence not 

in excess of a sentence imposed within the advisory Sentencing 

Guidelines range and that this waiver was reviewed with Daniels 

2 
at his plea hearing, which also revealed that he knowingly and 

voluntarily pled guilty to his offense. United States v. 

Wessells, 936 F.2d 165, 167-68 (4th Cir. 1991). Because 

Daniels’ 360-month sentence was within his properly-calculated 

sentencing range; not in excess of the statutory maximum, United 

States v. General, 278 F.3d 389, 399 n.4 (4th Cir. 2002); not 

imposed for a constitutionally improper reason, United States v. 

Marin, 961 F.2d 493, 496 (4th Cir. 1992); and not in violation 

of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel, United States v. Attar, 

38 F.3d 727, 732-33 (4th Cir. 1994); we grant the Government’s 

motion to dismiss the appeal of Daniels’ 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 Daniels’ 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 

3 
4 

materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED IN PART;

AFFIRMED IN PART