
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jackson Charles GOODWIN, III, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 00-4097.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted March 30, 2001.
    Decided April 17, 2001.
    J. Charles Jones, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. C. Nicks Williams, Office of the United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed in part and remanded in part by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Jackson Charles Goodwin III was one of four defendants charged with theft, embezzlement or misapplication of funds by a bank employee in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 656 & 2 (West Supp.2000). Goodwin pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement that contained a valid waiver of his appellate rights.

The Government has moved to dismiss all issues presented on appeal, except Goodwin’s challenge to the computation of his criminal history, specifically the addition of a point for a driving offense, which is excluded under United States Sentencing Guideline Manual § 4A1.2(c)(2000). The Government agrees that assigning a criminal history point for this offense was erroneous and has moved for a remand for resentencing under a corrected computation of Goodwin’s criminal history. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 3742(f)(West Supp. 2000), we remand for resentencing to take this fact into account. Finding that Goodwin’s waiver of appeal resulted from a knowing and intelligent decision, the Government’s motion to dismiss the remainder of the appeal is granted. United States v. Broughton-Jones, 71 F.3d 1143, 1146 (4th Cir.1995). Goodwin’s motion for summary judgment and to expedite or certify the issues raised by this case for review by the Supreme Court is denied.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no other meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore dismiss this appeal except as to the remand for resentencing. 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. Counsel’s 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 in the decisional process.

DISMISSED IN PART; REMANDED IN PART.  