United States v. Taylor , 180 F. App'x 461 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-5070
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
GEORGE R. TAYLOR,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr.,
District Judge. (CR-05-25)
Submitted: May 16, 2006 Decided: May 18, 2006
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert G. McCoid, MCCAMIC, SACCO, PIZZUTI & MCCOID, PLLC, Wheeling,
West Virginia, for Appellant. Thomas E. Johnston, United States
Attorney, John C. Parr, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling,
West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
George R. Taylor appeals his conviction and 110-month
sentence pursuant to his guilty plea for aiding and abetting the
possession with intent to distribute more than five grams of
cocaine base, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 (2000) and 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B) (2000).
Counsel for Taylor has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he states there
are no meritorious issues for review, but presenting the issue of
whether the district court erred in its calculation of Taylor’s
criminal history score. Although informed of his right to file a
pro se supplemental brief, Taylor has not done so.
Taylor’s plea agreement included a provision by which he
agreed to waive his right to appeal any prison sentence under 125
months. Taylor knowingly and voluntarily agreed to this provision.
We conclude that the appeal waiver is valid and enforceable.
Because Taylor received a sentence shorter than 125 months, he has
waived his right to appeal. See United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d
162, 168 (4th Cir. 2005).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm Taylor’s conviction and sentence.
This court requires that counsel inform Taylor, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
- 2 -
further review. If Taylor 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 Taylor.
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
- 3 -