UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-4041

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JOSEPH EDWARDS, III,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (CR-03-377-WDQ)

Submitted: November 17, 2005 Decided: November 22, 2005

Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part, and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas McCarthy, Jr., MCCARTHY & MCCARTHY, LLC, Annapolis, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Christopher J. Romano, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:

Joseph Edwards, III, pled guilty, pursuant to a plea

agreement, to conspiracy to distribute fifty grams or more of

cocaine base within 1000 feet of a public housing facility under

(a) (2000). In his plea agreement, he waived his right

to appeal his Federal Sentencing Guidelines sentence, except for an

upward departure of his sentencing range. Edwards was sentenced

below his Guideline range to 121 months of imprisonment. On

appeal, Edwards’ counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.

California,

(1967), alleging there are no meritorious

issues for appeal and conceding that Edwards’ appeal of his

sentence is precluded by our recent decision in United States v.

Blick,

(4th Cir. 2005). Counsel suggests, however,

that perhaps he provided ineffective assistance by failing to

encourage Edwards to attempt to withdraw his plea following the

Supreme Court’s opinion in Blakely v. Washington,

(2004). Despite notice, Edwards has not filed a pro se

supplemental brief. For the reasons that follow, we dismiss in

part, and affirm in part.

We dismiss Edwards’ appeal of his sentence as the record

reveals he knowingly and voluntarily waived his to appeal his

sentence. Where, as here, the United States seeks enforcement of

a waiver, and there is no claim that the Government breached its

obligations under the plea agreement, we will enforce the waiver to

- 2 - preclude a defendant from appealing a specific issue if the record

establishes that the waiver is valid and that the issue being

appealed is within the scope of the waiver. Blick,

.

We do not find that Edwards’ counsel provided ineffective

assistance by failing to seek withdrawal of Edwards’ plea following

the Supreme Court’s opinion in Blakely and its subsequent

application of Blakely to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines in

United States v. Booker,

(2005). In Blick, this

court rejected the claim that a defendant’s plea was rendered

invalid because the Supreme Court’s later opinion in Booker found

the mandatory Sentencing Guidelines unconstitutional. Blick,

; see also United States v. Johnson,

(4th Cir. 2005) (rejecting Johnson’s argument that a

defendant cannot waive the right to an appeal based on subsequent

changes in the law). Thus, we do not find ineffective assistance

of counsel conclusively appearing on the record, as required to

establish such a claim on direct appeal. United States v. James,

(4th Cir. 2003), cert. denied,

(2004). Accordingly, we affirm as to this claim.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for

appeal. We deny counsel’s motion to withdraw, and note that

counsel must inform Edwards, in writing, of his right to petition

- 3 - the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If

Edwards requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes

that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may renew his

motion for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion

must state that a copy thereof was served on Edwards. 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 IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART

- 4 -