UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 02-4776

TRENACE PATTERSON,

Defendant-Appellant. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 02-4787

TORY L. BLAKELY,

Defendant-Appellant. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 02-4800

LASHAWN JAMES,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg.

Cameron M. Currie, District Judge.

(CR-01-736)

Submitted: August 28, 2003

Decided: September 4, 2003

Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Johnny E. Watson, Sr., Columbia, South Carolina; Mario A. Pacella,

STROM LAW FIRM, L.L.C., Columbia, South Carolina; Christopher

J. Moran, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellants. J. Strom Thurmond, Jr., United States Attorney, Stacey D. Haynes, Assistant

United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Trenace Patterson (No. 02-4776(L)), Tory Blakely (No. 02-4787),

and LaShawn James (No. 02-4800) appeal their convictions based

upon written plea agreements and sentences on a charge of conspiracy

to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute five kilograms or

more of cocaine and 50 grams or more of cocaine base, in violation

of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000), based upon their involvement with a number of other co-conspirators in drug trafficking activities which

occurred over a twelve-year period. After conducting thorough Fed.

R. Crim. P. 11 colloquies, the district court found each of the three

Defendants guilty and subsequently sentenced them, respectively, to

235 months, 292 months, and 87 months of imprisonment, and five

years of supervised release each. 

On appeal, Patterson challenges the district court’s calculation of

her criminal history points, denial of a one-point reduction for being

a minor participant in the offense as well as denial of a downward

departure for substantial assistance, and determination of drug

weights attributable to her. We review Patterson’s claims for plain

2 UNITED STATES v. PATTERSON
error, as these objections are made for the first time on appeal, United

States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732-36 (1993), and find them to have

no merit. First, the district court’s determination that Patterson was a

criminal history category IV is amply supported by the record.1 Patterson’s claim that as a transporter of drugs she should have been

given a reduction for being a minor participant fails. United States v.

Withers, 100 F.3d 1142, 1147 (4th Cir. 1997). Her assertion that the

district court should have granted her a reduction for substantial assistance is without merit because nothing in the record would support a

finding that she earned a Fed. R. Crim. P. 35 reduction. 

Finally, we reject Patterson’s claim relative to drug weight. The

evidence amply demonstrated that Patterson personally transported in

excess of one kilogram of cocaine from Texas to South Carolina,

which was then converted into "crack cocaine" and distributed. While

the basis for Patterson’s challenge on appeal is that she was unaware

the cocaine was being cooked into crack cocaine, her express admission to the district court at sentencing of this very fact belies this

claim. We find the district court correctly held Patterson accountable

for the multi-kilogram quantities of crack cocaine that were distributed by her co-conspirators. United States v. Gilliam, 987 F.2d 1009,

1012-13 (4th Cir. 1993). 

Counsel for Blakely and James has filed a brief in accordance with

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), claiming sentencing

errors, but concluding that there are no meritorious grounds for

appeal. Blakely has filed a supplemental brief; James has not, despite

notification of her right to do so. 

We find to be meritless Blakely’s specific claims on appeal. The

district court did not plainly err in setting Blakely’s base offense level

at thirty-eight pursuant to USSG § 2D1.1, the district court properly

applied a two-level enhancement to Blakely’s offense level because

1Even assuming, arguendo, that Patterson’s claim is correct that she

did not join the conspiracy until January 2001, because she joined within

two years of her release from imprisonment, she qualified for an additional criminal history point under USSG § 4A1.1, and the sentence

imposed by the district court falls within the sentencing range as otherwise calculated. 

UNITED STATES v. PATTERSON 3
he used a firearm in some of his drug transactions, and there was

ample evidence presented that Blakely supervised a criminal conspiracy with more than five participants, warranting enhancement under

USSG § 3B1.1(b).2

We review James’ sole claim on appeal, made pursuant to Anders,

for plain error,3 and find that her allegation that she should have

received a sentence of less than 87 months is not supported by the

record. James pled guilty to possessing the cocaine and has admitted

her involvement in the conspiracy. She received all downward departures for which she was eligible. 

In accordance with the requirements of Anders, we have examined

the entire record as to Blakely and James and find no meritorious

issues for appeal relative to either Appellant. There were no irregularities in the plea process, and we find that both Blakely and James

were sentenced upon a proper application of the guidelines and consistent with statutory and constitutional law. 

Based upon the foregoing, we affirm the convictions and sentences

of Patterson, Blakely, and James. In cases filed pursuant to Anders,

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

2Blakely’s failure to object to any of these issues below requires us to

review the claims on appeal for plain error. Olano, 507 U.S. at 732-36.

3Olano, 507 U.S. at 732-36. 

4 UNITED STATES v. PATTERSON