United States v. Ford, 4th Cir. (2003)

Download as pdf
Download as pdf
You are on page 1of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-4793

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JAMES DONOVAN FORD,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief
District Judge. (CR-00-61)

Submitted:

July 10, 2003

Decided:

July 15, 2003

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Randolph M. Lee, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Brian


Steven Cromwell, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte,
North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:
James Donovan Ford pled guilty without the benefit of a plea
agreement to being a felon in possession of a firearm.
sentenced to ninety-two months imprisonment.

He was

Fords attorney has

filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738


(1967), challenging the denial of Fords motion to suppress, but
stating that, in his view, there are no meritorious issues for
appeal. Ford was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental
brief, but he did not do so.
Absent a conditional plea, entered with the approval of the
district court and the consent of the Government, a guilty plea
waives the right to challenge suppression rulings.

See Fed. R.

Crim. P. 11(a)(2); United States v. Broce, 488 U.S. 563, 569


(1989).

Although Ford sought to enter a conditional plea, the

transcript of his plea hearing shows that the Government did not
agree, and there was no written plea agreement. Accordingly, Fords
unconditional plea has waived his right to raise any suppression
issues.
Pursuant to Anders, we have reviewed the record for reversible
error and found none.
sentence.

We therefore affirm the conviction and

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.

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

You might also like