149 F. App'x 213
4th Cir.
2005

*1 Before WIDENER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Reita P. Pendry, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, Thomas R. Ascik, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

PER CURIAM:

On July 9, 2004, we affirmed One Male Juvenile’s (“1MJ”) three-year sentence following his guilty plea to one count of wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (2000). See United States v. One Male Juvenile, No. 03-4523, 2004 WL 1539632 (4th Cir. July 9, 2004) (unpublished). 1MJ’s attorney filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and we found no meritorious issues for appeal. The United States Supreme Court granted 1MJ’s petition for a writ of certiorari, vacated our judgment, and remanded the case to this court for further consideration in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. , 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). After considering the parties’ supplemental briefs, we affirm.

The parties agree that 1MJ waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence in a plea agreement that was knowingly and voluntarily entered. This court determined in United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162 (4th Cir. 2005), that a waiver of the right to appeal in a plea agreement entered into prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Booker, was not invalidated by the change in law effected by that case and that Booker error fell within the scope of Blick’s generic waiver. Blick, 408 F.3d at 169-70. The Government asserts that 1MJ’s sentence should be affirmed based upon his waiver of appellate rights. We agree and affirm 1MJ’s sentence because he knowingly and voluntarily waived *3 appellate review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions of the parties are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED