Court Opinion

ID: 1002213
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 18:07:32.894594+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:21.879004
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                    No. 99-4457

MICHAEL A. SPAIN,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.
James R. Spencer, District Judge.
(CR-99-8)

Submitted: July 25, 2000

Decided: August 11, 2000

Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN, and WILLIAMS,
Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Beverly M. Murray, Petersburg, Virginia, for Appellant. Helen F.
Fahey, United States Attorney, S. David Schiller, Assistant United
States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Michael A. Spain pled guilty to one count of possession of cocaine
in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 844 (West 1999) and one count of pos-
session of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 922(g)(1) (West 2000). The district court sentenced Spain to
twenty-four months in prison on the drug conviction and a concurrent
eighty-four months in prison on the firearm conviction. Spain appeals,
claiming that he was entitled to a downward departure due to the
quantity of drugs involved and that the district court erred by increas-
ing his offense level for obstruction of justice. We dismiss the appeal.

In his plea agreement, Spain waived the right to appeal any sen-
tence within the statutory maximum. The district court accepted
Spain's guilty plea at a hearing conducted in accordance with Rule 11
of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. We have reviewed
Spain's plea agreement and the Rule 11 colloquy and find that Spain
made a knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to appeal. See
United States v. Broughton-Jones, 71 F.3d 1143, 1146 (4th Cir.
1995).

Because Spain's sentence was within the statutory maximum, we
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

                    2