UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 02-4114

SHAUN KEVIN HARRIS, a/k/a Mike,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins.

Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., District Judge.

(CR-00-7)

Submitted: September 5, 2002

Decided: September 12, 2002

Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Joan A. Mooney, STILLER & MOONEY, P.L.L.C, Morgantown,

West Virginia, for Appellant. Thomas E. Johnston, United States

Attorney, Sherry L. Muncy, Assistant United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 
OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Shaun Kevin Harris was sentenced to a 360-month term of incarceration upon his conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to

distribute and distribution of cocaine base, 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000);

two counts of aiding and abetting the distribution of cocaine base, 18

U.S.C. § 2 (2000), 21 U.S.C. § 841 (2000); one count of distribution

of cocaine base, 21 U.S.C. § 841; and one count of possession with

intent to distribute cocaine base, 21 U.S.C. § 841. Counsel for Harris

has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

738 (1967), raising issues relating to the sufficiency of evidence that

Harris was involved in the single charged conspiracy and the guilty

verdicts on three counts for which alibi evidence was presented, but

stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Harris filed a

pro se supplemental brief repeating the challenge to the conspiracy

conviction and raising an issue pursuant to Apprendi v. New Jersey,

530 U.S. 466 (2000), and a challenge to the computation of his sentence. 

Harris asserts evidence at trial proved he was involved in multiple

conspiracies rather than the single conspiracy charged in the indictment. We have reviewed the record and find that substantial evidence,

when viewed in the light most favorable to the Government, supports

Harris’ conviction for the conspiracy to distribute cocaine base

charged in the indictment. See Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60,

80 (1942); United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862 (4th Cir. 1996).

Harris next asserts that his brother offered alibi evidence that precluded a conviction for three substantive counts. We do not review

witness credibility and assume the jury resolved all contradictions in

the evidence in the government’s favor. United States v. Romer, 148

F.3d 359, 364 (4th Cir. 1998). 

Turning to the claims raised in Harris’ pro se supplemental brief,

we find the Apprendi claim baseless because his sentence was below

the applicable statutory maximum. In addition, the challenge to Harris’ sentence as a career offender is meritless. 

2 UNITED STATES v. HARRIS
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in

this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Harris’ 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 in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

UNITED STATES v. HARRIS 3