Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 6 views

    United States v. Lee, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed John Curtis Lee's sentence of 210 months imprisonment. Lee pled guilty to multiple firearms and explosives charges. In his Anders appeal, Lee claimed prosecutorial misconduct for failing to timely disclose prejudicial sentencing information. However, the court found that Lee waived his right to appeal his sentence when he signed a plea agreement with the government. The court conducted an independent review and found no issues outside the scope of the waiver. Therefore, Lee's conviction and sentence were affirmed.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Lee, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views3 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed John Curtis Lee's sentence of 210 months imprisonment. Lee pled guilty to multiple firearms and explosives charges. In his Anders appeal, Lee claimed prosecutorial misconduct for failing to timely disclose prejudicial sentencing information. However, the court found that Lee waived his right to appeal his sentence when he signed a plea agreement with the government. The court conducted an independent review and found no issues outside the scope of the waiver. Therefore, Lee's conviction and sentence were affirmed.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2005-08-18 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 03-4941

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed John Curtis Lee's sentence of 210 months imprisonment. Lee pled guilty to multiple firearms and explosives charges. In his Anders appeal, Lee claimed prosecutorial misconduct for failing to timely disclose prejudicial sentencing information. However, the court found that Lee waived his right to appeal his sentence when he signed a plea agreement with the government. The court conducted an independent review and found no issues outside the scope of the waiver. Therefore, Lee's conviction and sentence were affirmed.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    6 views3 pages

    United States v. Lee, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed John Curtis Lee's sentence of 210 months imprisonment. Lee pled guilty to multiple firearms and explosives charges. In his Anders appeal, Lee claimed prosecutorial misconduct for failing to timely disclose prejudicial sentencing information. However, the court found that Lee waived his right to appeal his sentence when he signed a plea agreement with the government. The court conducted an independent review and found no issues outside the scope of the waiver. Therefore, Lee's conviction and sentence were affirmed.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 03-4941

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    JOHN CURTIS LEE,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief
    District Judge. (CR-03-104)

    Submitted:

    July 6, 2005

    Decided:

    August 18, 2005

    Before MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,


    Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
    Appellant. Frank D. Whitney, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes,
    Christine Witcover Dean, Assistant United States Attorneys,
    Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    John

    Curtis

    Lee

    appeals

    the

    district

    courts

    order

    sentencing him to 210 months imprisonment following his guilty


    pleas to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation
    of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) (2000); possession of an unregistered
    explosive device and possession of an unregistered silencer, in
    violation of 26 U.S.C.

    5841, 5861, & 5871 (2000); and unlawful

    manufacture of a weapon, in violation of 26 U.S.C. 5822, 5861,


    & 5871 (2000).

    We affirm.

    In his appeal, filed pursuant to Anders v. California,


    386 U.S. 738 (1967), counsel for Lee claims that the Government
    engaged in misconduct by failing to timely disclose prejudicial
    material that enhanced Lees sentence.

    Criminal defendants may

    waive their statutory right to direct appeal as part of a plea


    agreement with the government.
    493, 496 (4th Cir. 1992).

    United States v. Marin, 961 F.2d

    Lee unambiguously waived his right to

    appeal his sentence by the terms of his plea agreement with the
    Government.

    Accordingly, Lees claim relating to the calculation

    of his sentence is precluded by his plea agreement.


    Pursuant to Anders, we have reviewed the record for any
    error outside the scope of Lees waiver of appellate rights and
    have found no meritorious issues.
    conviction and sentence.

    Accordingly, we affirm Lees

    This court requires that counsel inform

    his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court

    - 2 -

    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.

    Counsels motion must state that

    a copy thereof was served on the client.

    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 -

    You might also like