UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 01-4373

BILLY HICKS WILLIAMS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.

W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge.

(CR-00-164)

Submitted: December 21, 2001

Decided: January 14, 2002

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellant. Felice McConnell Corpening, OFFICE OF THE 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 

Billy Hicks Williams appeals his conviction and sentence for his

escape from custody in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 751(a) (1994). Williams’ attorney noted a timely appeal and filed a brief in accordance

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he represents that there are no arguable issues of merit presented by this

appeal. Nonetheless, in his brief, counsel addressed the possibility

that the district court erred in declining to depart downward pursuant

to § 5K2.13 of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual ("USSG").

The time for filing a supplemental brief has passed and Williams has

not responded, despite being advised of his right to do so. The Government moves to dismiss the appeal based on a waiver provision in

Williams’ plea agreement. Finding the waiver valid and enforceable,

we grant the motion and dismiss this appeal. 

We have reviewed Williams’ plea agreement and the Rule 11 colloquy and find that Williams knowingly and intelligently waived his

right to appeal "whatever sentence imposed." See United States v.

Broughton-Jones, 71 F.3d 1143, 1146 (4th Cir. 1995). We therefore

find that Williams waived his right to appeal the district court’s denial

of a downward departure under USSG § 2B3.1(b)(2)(C). This is the

only issue presented by counsel through this appeal. Accordingly, we

grant the Government’s motion to dismiss the appeal. 

As required by Anders, we have independently reviewed the entire

record and all pertinent documents. We have considered all possible

issues presented by this record and conclude that there are no nonfrivolous grounds for this appeal. Pursuant to the plan adopted by the

Fourth Circuit Judicial Council in implementation of the Criminal

Justice Act of 1964, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A (1994), 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 requested

by the client to do so, counsel should prepare a timely petition for writ

of certiorari, unless counsel believes that such a petition would be

frivolous. In that case, 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 argu2 UNITED STATES v. WILLIAMS
ment 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. WILLIAMS 3