Case ID: f-appx_61/html/0029-01.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. Jonathon DOVER, a/k/a Juan Blase, a/k/a Blaze, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 02-4747.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted March 6, 2003.
    Decided March 17, 2003.
    
      Mario A. Pacella, Strom Law Firm, L.L.C., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Rose Mary Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Jonathon Dover pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base, 21 U.S.C. § 846(a)(2000). Dover’s counsel has a filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), raising one possible sentencing issue on appeal, but stating that, in her view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Dover was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has failed to do so.

Dover’s sentence was enhanced for possession of a firearm during drug transactions under U.S. Sentencing Guideline Manual § 2D1.1 (2000) based on cooperating witnesses’ statements that Dover routinely carried firearms during drug transactions. Dover objected to the presentence report’s recommendation of that enhancement but withdrew the objection at the sentencing hearing. We find the district court did not commit clear error in its application of the firearm enhancement. See United States v. McAllister, 272 F.3d 228, 234 (4th Cir.2001).

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Dover’s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform her 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 the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.