UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-4460 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JACQUELINE LYNNE BRIDGES,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Senior

District Judge. (1:05-cr-00244-WLO)

Submitted: November 15, 2006 Decided: November 20, 2006

Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas N. Cochran, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro,

North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States

Attorney, Sandra Jane Hairston, Assistant United States Attorney,

Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Jacqueline Lynne Bridges appeals from the 160-month

sentence imposed following her guilty plea to conspiracy to

distribute more than fifty grams of crack cocaine. Bridges’

counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

738, 744 (1967), stating that there were no meritorious issues for

appeal, but addressing the validity of Bridges’ sentence. Bridges

filed two documents in this court, raising additional issues and

expressing her disagreement with some drug amounts attributed to

her. Because our review of the record discloses no reversible

error, we affirm.

We find that Bridges’ guilty plea was knowingly and

voluntarily entered after a thorough hearing pursuant to Fed. R.

Crim. P. 11. Bridges was properly advised of her rights, the

offense charged, and the minimum and maximum sentences for the

offense. The court also determined that there was an independent

factual basis for the plea and that the plea was not coerced or

influenced by any promises. See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S.

25, 31 (1970); United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 119-20 (4th

Cir. 1991).

We find that the district court properly applied the

Sentencing Guidelines and considered the relevant sentencing

factors before imposing the 160-month sentence. 18 U.S.C.A.

§ 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2006); see United States v. Hughes,
- 3 -

401 F.3d 540, 546-47 (4th Cir. 2005). Additionally, we find that

the sentence imposed was reasonable. See United States v. Green,

436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir. 2006) (“[A] sentence imposed within the

properly calculated [g]uidelines range . . . is presumptively

reasonable.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted),

cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2309 (2006). Accordingly, we affirm

Bridges’ sentence. 

As required by Anders, we have reviewed the entire

record, including the documents filed by Bridges, and have found no

meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Bridges’

conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform

his client, in writing, of her right to petition the Supreme Court

of the United States for further review. Accordingly, we deny

counsel’s motion to withdraw from representation. If Bridges

requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such

a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move again 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