UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 01-4573

WU FENG ZHANG,

Defendant-Appellant. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 01-4579

WU FENG ZHANG,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham.

N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief District Judge.

(CR-01-34, CR-01-80)

Submitted: December 13, 2001

Decided: December 27, 2001

Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 
COUNSEL

Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, William S. Trivette,

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for

Appellant. Benjamin H. White, Jr., United States Attorney, Michael

F. Joseph, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Pursuant to a guilty plea, Wu Feng Zhang pled guilty to counterfeiting in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) (1994). The district court

sentenced him to a 12 month term of imprisonment for the counterfeiting charge followed by a 21 month term of imprisonment for revocation of probation. Zhang timely appealed. Zhang’s attorney has

filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967). Counsel states there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but

contends on Zhang’s behalf that the district court abused its discretion

by imposing a 12 month sentence for the counterfeiting violation and

that the district court’s 21 month sentence imposed for revocation of

probation was in violation of law or was plainly unreasonable. Zhang

was informed of his right to file a supplemental brief but did not file

a brief. 

Zhang’s 12 month counterfeiting sentence was within the properly

calculated guideline range of 6-12 months and therefore is not appealable. See United States v. Porter, 909 F.2d 789, 794 (4th Cir. 1990).

Moreover, the district court properly considered the counterfeiting

offense that gave rise to the revocation of probation in fashioning the

sentence for that revocation. See 18 U.S.C. § 3565(a)(2) (1994);

United States v. Schaefer, 120 F.3d 505, 507 (4th Cir. 1997). Further,

2 UNITED STATES v. ZHANG
the court properly found, in its discretion, that an upward departure

was warranted for the revocation of probation. See United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual, § 7B1.4, comment. (n.4)

(Nov. 2000). 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We have

examined the entire record in this case in accordance with the requirements of Anders and find no meritorious issues for appeal. 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. Finally, 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. ZHANG 3