Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sean Shaka MYLES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-05-20
Citations: 63 F. App'x 155
Docket Number: No. 02-4638
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sean Shaka MYLES, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 63
Pages: 155–155

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sean Shaka MYLES, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 02-4638.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted May 15, 2008.
Decided May 20, 2003.
Michael E. Marr, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Thomas M. DiBiagio, United States Attorney, Harvey E. Eisenberg, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
PER CURIAM.
Sean Shaka Myles appeals his conviction, entered upon a written plea agreement, of conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine and fifty grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000). As part of his written plea agreement, Myles expressly waived his right to appeal any sentence falling within the statutory range, except for the right to appeal based on an upward or downward departure from the guideline range established at sentencing. Following an extensive Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 hearing, the district court accepted Myles' plea, and sentenced him to 262 months' imprisonment, five years of supervised release, and a $100 special assessment.
Myles claims on appeal that the district court erred in not granting him a downward departure from the guideline range. As to this claim, we find that Myles knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal. United States v. Marin, 961 F.2d 493, 496 (4th Cir.1992).
We therefore dismiss Myles' appeal. 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.