The opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-5137
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LOUIS A. BROWN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:11-cr-00057-REP-1)
Submitted: July 19, 2012 Decided: July 23, 2012
Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Frances H.
Pratt, Mary E. Maguire, Assistant Federal Public Defenders,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Stephen David Schiller,
Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Louis A. Brown appeals his conviction and 240-month
sentence following his guilty plea, pursuant to a written plea
agreement, to distribution of cocaine base, in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2006). On appeal, Brown’s counsel filed a
brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
asserting that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but
questioning whether Brown’s waiver of appellate rights was valid
and enforceable. Brown filed a pro se supplemental brief in
which he argued that trial counsel was ineffective and that the
district court erred by sentencing him as a career offender,
enhancing his offense level for obstruction of justice, and
denying him a downward adjustment for acceptance of
responsibility. Finding no error, we affirm.
The sole issue counsel raised in the Anders brief is
whether Brown’s waiver of appellate rights is valid and
enforceable. However, we decline to sua sponte enforce the
waiver because the Government has not sought to do so. See
United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir. 2005)
(citing United States v. Brock, 211 F.3d 88, 90 n.1 (4th Cir.
2000)). After considering Brown’s pro se claims that relate to
alleged errors by the district court and reviewing the record in
this case in accordance with Anders, we have found no
meritorious issues for appeal. We decline to consider Brown’s
2
ineffective assistance of counsel claims in this appeal. See
United States v. Powell, 680 F.3d 350, 359 (4th Cir. 2012)
(proceeding standard).
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.
This court requires that counsel inform Brown, in writing, of
his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Brown requests that a petition be filed, but
counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,
counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Brown. 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