United States v. Lyons , 60 F. App'x 446 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                          UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,              
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.                             No. 02-4659
    LINWOOD LYONS,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville.
    Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge.
    (CR-01-20-HO)
    Submitted: February 20, 2003
    Decided: March 28, 2003
    Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    COUNSEL
    Gregory J. Ramage, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne
    Margaret Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North
    Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
    Local Rule 36(c).
    2                       UNITED STATES v. LYONS
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    Linwood Lyons appeals his conviction based upon a written plea
    agreement and sentence on a criminal information alleging conspiracy
    to distribute in excess of fifty grams of cocaine base (crack), in viola-
    tion of 
    21 U.S.C. §§ 841
    (a), 846 (2000). After conducting a thorough
    Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 colloquy, the district court found Lyons guilty,
    and sentenced him to 180 months’ imprisonment and five years’
    supervised release. Lyons’ attorney has filed a brief in accordance
    with Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967), claiming ineffective
    assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct, but concluding
    that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal. Lyons was notified
    of his right to file an additional brief, which he did. Lyons claimed,
    pro se, that he signed the plea agreement in reliance on a promise that
    he would receive no more than sixty months in prison, he challenged
    his guideline calculation, and claims actual innocence.
    We find no merit to Lyons’ specific claims on appeal. The district
    court complied with the mandates of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, Lyons testi-
    fied he was fully satisfied with the services of his attorney, and he fur-
    ther testified that there were no promises made to him other than
    those promises outlined in his plea agreement. The record reflects that
    Lyons’ plea was knowing and voluntarily entered into. The district
    court advised Lyons of the statutory sentence carried by the charge.
    Further, Lyons waived his right to appeal on any issue other than inef-
    fective assistance of counsel or prosecutorial misconduct. We find no
    merit to any of the claims raised by Lyons or his attorney on his
    behalf. In accordance with the requirements of Anders, we have
    examined the entire record and find no meritorious issues for appeal.
    Accordingly, we grant the Government’s motion for summary
    affirmance and affirm Lyons’ conviction and sentence. This court
    requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to peti-
    tion 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
    UNITED STATES v. LYONS                      3
    argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre-
    sented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid
    the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-4659

Citation Numbers: 60 F. App'x 446

Judges: Gregory, Luttig, Motz, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 3/28/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/6/2023