Court Opinion

ID: 992792
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-03 23:57:46.073281+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:27:09.534263
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.
                                                                        No. 95-5434
ANTONIO ALFONZO ROGERS, a/k/a
Monkey,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Richard L. Voorhees, Chief District Judge.
(CR-94-92-V)

Submitted: July 31, 1997

Decided: August 12, 1997

Before HALL, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Kenneth P. Andresen, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Mark
T. Calloway, United States Attorney, Gretchen C.F. Shappert, Assis-
tant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

PER CURIAM:

Antonio Alfonzo Rogers pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with
intent to distribute and to distribute crack cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 846
(1994), and possession of a firearm while a convicted felon, 18
U.S.C.A. § 922(g)(1) (West Supp. 1997). His attorney has filed a
brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
raising several issues but stating that in his view there are no meritori-
ous issues. Rogers has been informed of his right to file a pro se sup-
plemental brief, but has not filed a brief. We dismiss the appeal.

Rogers' plea agreement contained a waiver of his right to appeal
either the conviction or sentence as long as his sentence was within
the guideline range, except for allegations of ineffective assistance or
prosecutorial misconduct. At the plea colloquy, the magistrate judge*
reviewed this provision with Rogers. In view of these circumstances,
it is evident that Rogers made a knowing and intelligent waiver of his
appeal rights. See United States v. Broughton-Jones, 71 F.3d 1143,
1146 (4th Cir. 1995). Because the waiver is valid, our review under
Anders is confined to an examination of the record for prosecutorial
misconduct or ineffective assistance which is conclusively shown in
the materials before us. See United States v. Smith, 62 F.3d 641, 645
(4th Cir. 1995). We find neither.

We therefore dismiss the 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 that a copy thereof
was served on the client.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
tions are adequately presented in the record and briefs, and oral argu-
ment would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
_________________________________________________________________
*Rogers consented to having his plea accepted by a United States
Magistrate Judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1994).

                     2