UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 00-4658

GUS LINES, a/k/a Vamp,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville.

Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge.

(CR-98-795)

Submitted: February 28, 2001

Decided: April 5, 2001

Before WILKINS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Benjamin T. Stepp, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,

South Carolina, for Appellant. Jon Rene Josey, OFFICE OF THE

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina; E. Jean

Howard, Kevin Frank McDonald, OFFICE OF THE UNITED

STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Gus Lines was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to

distribute cocaine and cocaine base, 21 U.S.C. § 846 (1994), and possession with the intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base, 21

U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1) (West 1999), and sentenced to life imprisonment. We affirmed Lines’ conviction but vacated and remanded for

resentencing, concluding that he should have only received a onelevel enhancement, rather than the three-level enhancement he

received as a manager or supervisor under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines

§ 3B1.1(b) (1998). 

On remand, the district court resentenced Lines to 240 months on

each count, to run consecutively, taking into account the Supreme

Court’s reasoning in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000),

which was decided while Lines’ appeal was pending. Lines’ attorney

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

738 (1967), addressing whether: (1) his conviction should be vacated

because drug quantities were not included in the indictment or submitted to the jury, and (2) the district court erred by imposing consecutive, rather than concurrent, 240-month sentences. Counsel

concedes, however, that there are no meritorious issues for appeal.

Lines has filed a supplemental pro se brief addressing the same claims

raised by his attorney. 

Several circuits have held post-Apprendi that when drug quantity

is not charged as an element of the offense and found by a jury

beyond a reasonable doubt, the maximum statutory term of imprisonment for each count of conviction is twenty years (or 240 months).

United States v. Baltas, 236 F.3d 27, 2001 WL 1001, at *13 (1st Cir.

Jan. 2, 2001); United States v. Nance, 236 F.3d 820, 2000 WL

1880629, at *3-*4 (7th Cir. Dec. 29, 2000); United States v. Jones,

235 F.3d 1231, 2000 WL 1854077, at *5 (10th Cir. Dec. 19, 2000);

2 UNITED STATES v. LINES
United States v. Page, 232 F.3d 536, 543 (6th Cir. 2000), petition for

cert. filed, U.S.L.W. (U.S. Jan. 3, Feb. 6, 2001) (No. 00-7751, 00-

8491); United States v. Nealy, 232 F.3d 825, 829 (11th Cir. 2000);

United States v. Doggett, 230 F.3d 160, 164-65 (5th Cir. 2000), cert.

denied, 121 S. Ct. 1152 (2001); United States v. Aguayo-Delgado,

220 F.3d 926, 930 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 6000 (2000); see

also United States v. Nordby, 225 F.3d 1053, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2000)

(holding that absent a jury finding on drug quantity, five-year statutory maximum term of imprisonment for violation of 21 U.S.C.A.

§ 841(a) involving marijuana applies). 

Here, Lines’ guideline range was determined to be 360 to 480

months imprisonment, based on a total offense level of 41 and a criminal history Category V. Taking Apprendi into account, the district

court imposed a 240-month sentence on each count of conviction, to

run consecutively. Lines argues that the district court erred in imposing consecutive rather than concurrent sentences on the two counts of

conviction. However, in light of this court’s decision in United States

v. White, 238 F.3d 537 (4th Cir. 2001), the district court did not err.

In accordance with the requirements of Anders, we have examined

the entire record in this case and find no meritorious issues for appeal.

Accordingly, we affirm Lines’ 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

UNITED STATES v. LINES 3