Case ID: f-appx_238/html/0934-01.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 STATE of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tandrea MYERS, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Aaron Boone, Defendant-Appellant.
    Nos. 06-4951, 06-5089.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: June 11, 2007.
    Decided: July 9, 2007.
    G. Wells Dickson, Jr., Wells Dickson, P.A., Charleston, South Carolina; Jerry N. Theos, Uricchio, Howe, Krell, Jacobson, Toporek & Theos, P.A., Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellants. Reginald I. Lloyd, United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, Carlton R. Bourne, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Tandrea Myers and Aaron Boone appeal their convictions and sentences for conspiracy to distribute 500 grams of cocaine and a quantity of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), (D) & 851 (2000). On appeal, counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), claiming there are no meritorious issues on appeal, but raising the question of whether the sentences were excessive. Boone filed a brief claiming trial counsel and appellate counsel were ineffective for not arguing that he had a defense of duress to the enhancement for obstruction of justice. Finding no error, we affirm.

We find the ranges of imprisonment were properly calculated under the sentencing guidelines. Thus, Myers’ and Boone’s sentence at the low end of the guideline range of imprisonment were reasonable. United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 341 (4th Cir.2006).

With respect to Boone’s claim counsel was ineffective, because the record does not conclusively show that counsel was ineffective, we will not review the issue and he should raise such an issue in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. United States v. Richardson, 195 F.3d 192, 198 (4th Cir.1999).

Pursuant to Anders, we have examined the entire record and find no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the convictions and sentences. We require counsel to inform the clients, in writing, of their right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If a client requests a petition be filed, but counsel believes 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.

AFFIRMED.