
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Derrick DAVIS, a/k/a Robert Smith, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Derrick Davis, a/k/a Robert Smith, Defendant-Appellant.
    Nos. 02-4929, 02-4930.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted May 29, 2008.
    Decided June 3, 2003.
    Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Jeanette Doran Brooks, Research and Writing Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Frank D. Whitney, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Banumathi Rangarajan, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    No. 02-4929 dismissed and No. 02-4930 affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM:

In No. 02-4929, Derrick Davis appeals his convictions and sentence for two counts of bank robbery. However, he concedes in his brief that he waived his right to appeal these convictions in his plea agreement. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.

In No. 02-4930, Davis appeals his conviction and sentence for criminal contempt of court in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 401 (2000), claiming there is insufficient evidence to support the conviction. Criminal contempt of court is defined, in part, as the “[mjisbehavior of any person in its presence or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice.” § 401. Davis’ behavior interrupted the district court’s effort at concluding the sentencing hearing and his subsequent inflammatory remarks were clearly directed at disrupting the respect and decorum of the court. See United States v. Murphy, 326 F.3d 501 (4th Cir.2003). Accordingly, we conclude sufficient evidence supports the conviction, and we affirm the order of the district court in this case.

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.

No. 02-4929—DISMISSED.

No. 02-4930—AFFIRMED.  