UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 00-4358

J. W. SULLIVAN, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville.

G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge.

(CR-98-207-2-6)

Submitted: November 30, 2000

Decided: December 14, 2000

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Andrew R. Mackenzie, BARRETT MACKENZIE, L.L.C., Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Arthur Bradley Parham, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Florence, South Carolina,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 
OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

J. W. Sullivan, Jr., appeals from his conviction and sentence

imposed for possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1) (West 1999) and 18 U.S.C. § 2

(1994). His attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious

grounds for appeal but asserting that the traffic stop during which the

drugs were discovered was an unlawful search and seizure and that

the government breached the plea agreement by failing to move for

a downward departure from the sentencing guidelines or move for a

reduction in sentence based on Sullivan’s substantial assistance to the

government. Sullivan was notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. We affirm. 

Sullivan contends that the drugs found incident to a police stop of

the vehicle in which he was riding should have been suppressed as the

fruit of an illegal stop. We find that this argument was waived by Sullivan’s guilty plea and his failure to preserve, in his plea agreement,

the right to challenge the search. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(a)(2); Tollett

v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267 (1973). 

Sullivan next contends that the government breached the plea

agreement by failing to move for a downward departure or a reduction in sentence based on Sullivan’s assistance to the government.

Our review of the record discloses no plain error. See United States

v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-32 (1993); United States v. Wallace, 22

F.3d 84, 87 (4th Cir. 1994). 

In accordance with the requirements of Anders, we have considered

the entire record on appeal and find that there was no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm Sullivan’s conviction and sentence. We deny

counsel’s motion to withdraw. 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

2 UNITED STATES v. SULLIVAN
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.

AFFIRMED

UNITED STATES v. SULLIVAN 3