US v. Donnell Benson, No. 13-4480 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4480 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DONNELL DEAN BENSON, a/k/a Dizzy, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III, Chief District Judge. (5:11-cr-00122-D-1) Submitted: January 30, 2014 Decided: February 14, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dhamian A. Blue, BLUE STEPHENS & FELLERS LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Donnell Dean Benson appeals his conviction and sentence for conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute more than 280 grams of cocaine base and five kilograms of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. ยง 846 (2012). Benson pled guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement and was sentenced to 372 supervised release. months imprisonment and five years of On appeal, counsel for Benson filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious issues for appeal in light of Benson s waiver of his right to appeal. Benson did not file a supplemental pro se brief, despite notice of his right to do so. The Government elected not to file a response to the Anders brief. Although counsel is correct that Benson s plea agreement contained an appellate waiver, the Government has not sought to enforce the waiver in this case. Accordingly, we conduct a review of the record as required by Anders. See United States v. Poindexter, 492 F.3d 263, 271 (4th Cir. 2007) ( If an Anders brief is filed, the government is free to file a responsive brief raising the waiver issue (if applicable) or do nothing, allowing this court to review. ). 2 perform the required Anders In accordance with the requirements of Anders, we have examined the entire record and have found no meritorious issues. We therefore affirm the district court s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Benson, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme review. If Benson Court of requests the that United a States petition for be further filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move representation. in this court for leave to withdraw from Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Benson. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
