Case ID: f-appx_25/html/0202-01.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. Shon Conner WILLIAMS, a/k/a Baby Boy, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 00-4385.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 20, 2001.
    Decided Jan. 25, 2002.
    Sol Z. Rosen, Washington, DC, for Appellant. Marshall Prince, Office of the United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Shon Conner Williams appeals his conviction and sentence of 360 months imprisonment for two counts of using, carrying, brandishing, and discharging a firearm during a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 2, 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) & (in), 1951(a) (West 2000). Williams’ counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), addressing whether the magistrate judge fully complied with Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 in accepting Williams’ guilty plea, and whether Williams’ sentence was imposed within the guidelines range, but stating that in his opinion there were no meritorious issues for appeal. Williams has filed a pro se supplemental brief arguing the district court did not comply with Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(a)(1) and the Government should have been required to move for a substantial assistance departure under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5K1.1 (1998).

We have reviewed the record and find that the magistrate judge complied with all the mandates of Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 in accepting Williams’ guilty plea. We further find that Williams’ sentence was proper, and the Government did move for a reduction of sentence based on substantial assistance; that motion was granted. We have reviewed Williams’ allegations of error and find them precluded by his valid appeal waiver. See United States v. Marin, 961 F.2d 493 (4th Cir.1992).

As required by Anders, we have examined the entire record and find no other meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm Williams’ conviction and 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, 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.