Case ID: f-appx_58/html/0972-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eric Sedell TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 02-4615.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 30, 2003.
    Decided Feb. 6, 2003.
    Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury, Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, L. Patrick Auld, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Eric Taylor appeals the sentence imposed by the district court following his guilty plea to multiple counts of bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) (2000). Taylor’s counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396,18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Counsel states there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but contends on Taylor’s behalf that his sentence violates Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Taylor has filed a pro se supplemental brief in which he challenges the district court’s sentencing guidelines calculation. Taylor also argues that his sentence violates Apprendi. Finding no error, we affirm.

Taylor first objects to a three-level increase in his offense level, pursuant to U.S. Sentencing • Guidelines Manual § 2B3.1(b)(2)(E) (2000), for brandishing a firearm. Taylor contends the enhancement violates Apprendi because brandishing was not alleged in the indictment. This argument is without merit. Taylor’s sentence was well within the statutory twenty-year maximum, and is unaffected by Apprendi. See United States v. Kinter, 235 F.3d 192, 201-02 (4th Cir.2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 937, 121 S.Ct. 1393, 149 L.Ed.2d 316 (2001).

Taylor next objects to the district court’s consideration of dismissed conduct in determining his sentencing range. This court has repeatedly upheld such consideration of dismissed conduct. See, e.g., United States v. Barber, 119 F.3d 276, 284 (4th Cir.1997). Accordingly, we find the enhancement was proper.

Pursuant to Anders, this court has reviewed the record for reversible error and found none. We therefore affirm Taylor’s sentence. 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, then counsel may move 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 the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.