Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Peter Lloyd COLEY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-07-11
Citations: 40 F. App'x 786
Docket Number: No. 02—4096
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Peter Lloyd COLEY, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 40
Pages: 786–787

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Peter Lloyd COLEY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 02—4096.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted June 20, 2002.
Decided July 11, 2002.
Richard L. Derrico, Copenhaver, Ellett, Cornelison & Derrico, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. John W. Brownlee, United States Attorney, Donald R. Wolthuis, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Peter Lloyd Coley appeals the district court's order reducing his sentence to 240 months pursuant to the Government's Fed. R.Crim.P. 3503) motion. Coley's counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), raising one sentencing issue on appeal but recognizing that Coley waived his appellate rights in his agreement with the Government. Coley filed a pro se supplemental brief asserting the terms of his 1996 plea agreement with the Government were violated.
Coley and the Government entered into an agreement prior to the filing of the Government's "Conditional Motion Pursuant to Rule 35(b)." Specifically, the parties agreed that Coley's sentence would be reduced to 240 months and he would not appeal his sentence. Coley contends that this agreement denies his Fifth Amendment right to due process. A sentence that does not violate the law or incorrectly apply the Sentencing Guidelines cannot be appealed. 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)(1994). This court lacks jurisdiction to review a sentence properly reduced pursuant to a Rule 35 motion. See United States v. Hill, 70 F.3d 321 (4th Cir.1995); United States v. Pridgen, 64 F.3d 147, 150 (4th Cir.1995).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore dismiss this 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 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 in the decisional process.
DISMISSED.