UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-4416
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus CRAIG CRISSMAN, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (CR-02-336) Submitted: April 29, 2004 Decided: May 4, 2004 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
M. Gregory McCollum, P.A., Myrtle B each , South Carolina; Debra Yvonne Chapman, DEBRA CHAPMAN PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for A ppel lant. James Strom Thurmond, Jr., United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina; Arthur Bradley Parha m, O FFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublishedopinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* The parties consented to entry of the plea before a

magistrate judge. United States v. Osborne , 345 F.3d 281, 285 (4th Cir. 2003). - 2 - PER CURIAM:

Craig Crissman pled guilty to armed robb ery, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a), (d), 2 (2000), and using and carrying a firearm during
a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c), 2 (2000). * Crissman was sentenced to a term of 101 months imprisonment consisting of forty months for t he ban k robbery and sixty-one months for the § 924(c) count. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising as potentially meritorious issues the extent of the district court’s downwarddeparture for substantial a ssistance and the court’s decision to impose sentence at the high end of the resulting guideline range, but asserting that in her view there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Crissman has been informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not filed a brief. We affirm the conviction and sentence.

We find no merit in the issues raised in the Anders brief. We lack jurisdiction to review a defendant’s appeal of the ext ent of a downward departure unless the departure decisi o n resultedin a sentence imposed in violation of law or resulted from an incorrect a ppli cation of the sentencing guidelines. United States v. Hill , 70 F.3d 321, 324-25 (4th Cir. 1995). Moreover, the district court’s decision to impose sentence at a particular point- 3 -

within a correctly calculated guideline rang e is generally not reviewable. United States v. Pitts , 176 F.3d 239, 248-49 (4th Cir. 1999). Pursuant to Anders , this court h as r eviewed the record for reversible error and found none. We therefore affirm the 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 f urthe r review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copythereof was served on the clie nt. We d ispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presentedin the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED