UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 01-4557

ANGELA GWEN BLAIR,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.

C. Weston Houck, District Judge.

(CR-00-603)

Submitted: September 30, 2002

Decided: October 18, 2002

Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Parks N. Small, Federal Public Defender, Columbia, South Carolina,

for Appellant. Rose Mary Parham, Assistant United States Attorney,

Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 
OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Angela Gwen Blair appeals her conviction entered on her guilty

plea to conspiracy with intent to possess more than fifty grams of

crack cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000). Blair’s counsel

noted a timely appeal and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), in which he represents that there are

no arguable issues of merit in this appeal. Nonetheless, in his brief,

counsel addressed the possibility that the district court had committed

reversible error in conducting Blair’s Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing.

Counsel also advanced several claims of error in the district court’s

imposition of sentence. The time for filing a supplemental brief has

passed and Blair has not responded, despite being advised of her right

to do so. Because we find counsel’s assignments of error to be without merit and can discern no other reversible error in the record on

appeal, we affirm Blair’s conviction and sentence. 

On appeal, counsel identifies no specific error in the district court’s

Rule 11 hearing and our review of the record reveals no reversible

error. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 524, 527 (4th Cir.

2002). The district court substantially complied with the mandates of

Rule 11 in accepting Blair’s guilty plea and we are able to conclude

that the plea was knowingly and voluntarily made. See id. At sentencing, there was no clear error in the district court’s determination of the

drug quantity to be included in the relevant conduct, United States v.

Randall, 171 F.3d 195, 210 (4th Cir. 1999), or Blair’s role in the

offense. United States v. Love, 134 F.3d 595, 606 (4th Cir. 1998).

Neither did the district court err in declining to compel the Government to move for a downward departure based on Blair’s allegedly

substantial assistance. See United States v. Conner, 930 F.2d 1073,

1076 (4th Cir. 1991). Finally, we have no difficulty in deciding that

the district court did not err in declining to apply the "safety valve"

provision to Blair’s sentence. USSG § 5C1.2 (2000); 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(f)(1)-(5) (2000). 

As required by Anders, we have independently reviewed the entire

record and all pertinent documents. We have considered all possible

issues presented by this record and conclude that there are no non2 UNITED STATES v. BLAIR
frivolous grounds for this appeal. Pursuant to the plan adopted by the

Fourth Circuit Judicial Council in implementation of the Criminal

Justice Act of 1964, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A (2000), this court requires

that counsel inform his client, in writing, of her right to petition the

Supreme Court for further review. If requested by the client to do so,

counsel should prepare a timely petition for writ of certiorari, unless

counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous. In that case,

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. 

Blair’s conviction and sentence are affirmed. 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. BLAIR 3