Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carol Ann LEE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-06-04
Citations: 228 F. App'x 261
Docket Number: No. 06-4511
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carol Ann LEE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 228
Pages: 261–262

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carol Ann LEE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-4511.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 31, 2007.
Decided: June 4, 2007.
John P. Pierce, The Pierce Law Group LLC, Bethesda, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Christopher J. Romano, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Carol Ann Lee pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute five grams or more of methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000), and was sentenced to the mandatory minimum term of five years imprisonment. Under the terms of her plea agreement, Lee waived the right to appeal "whatever sentence is imposed," and specifically waived the "right to appeal from any sentence within or below the advisory guidelines range resulting from an adjusted base offense level of 25...." At sentencing, the district court determined that Lee's adjusted offense level was twenty-five and departed downward to criminal history category I, which yielded an advisory guideline range of 57-71 months. Our review of the record discloses that Lee was advised about the waiver at the guilty plea hearing, and that the appeal waiver was knowing and voluntary. See United States v. Brown, 232 F.3d 399, 402 (4th Cir.2000).
We therefore dismiss the 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.