Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arthur Lee CARTER, Jr., a/k/a Khallid Muhammad, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-04-14
Citations: 60 F. App'x 512
Docket Number: No. 02-4834
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arthur Lee CARTER, Jr., a/k/a Khallid Muhammad, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 60
Pages: 512–513

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arthur Lee CARTER, Jr., a/k/a Khallid Muhammad, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 02-4834.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted March 26, 2003.
Decided April 14, 2003.
Frank W. Dunham, Jr., Federal Public Defender, Larry W. Shelton, Supervisory Assistant Federal Public Defender, Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Laura P. Tayman, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by published PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Arthur Lee Carter, Jr. appeals from his conviction and the 105-month sentence imposed by the district court following his guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) (2000). Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
On appeal, Carter contends his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary. Because Carter did not move to withdraw his guilty plea in the district court, review is for plain error. See United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 527 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, _ U.S. _, 123 S.Ct. 200, 154 L.Ed.2d 169 (2002). A thorough review of the record reveals no plain error, and we find Carter's plea was knowing and voluntary.
Carter also challenges the district court's application of the Sentencing Guidelines. Because we conclude Carter knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal his sentence, his challenge to the district court's application of the Sentencing Guidelines is waived. United States v. Wiggins, 905 F.2d 51, 53 (4th Cir.1990).
Accordingly, we affirm Carter's conviction and sentence. 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.
We deny the Government's motion to dismiss the appeal.