UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 01-4823

DON ANTHONY GUERRA,

Defendant-Appellant. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 01-4849

ASHBERTH SHERRAN GUERRA, a/k/a

Trinny,

Defendant-Appellant. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 01-4850

RUTHVEN YOUNG, a/k/a Ra Ra,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston.

Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge.

(CR-92-445)

Submitted: June 4, 2002

Decided: June 18, 2002
Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

William N. Nettles, Kathrine H. Hudgins, Columbia, South Carolina;

John W. Locklair, III, Murrells Inlet, South Carolina, for Appellants.

Bruce Howe Hendricks, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES

ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Appellants Ruthven Young, Don Guerra, and Ashberth Guerra

appeal their sentences imposed by the district court on resentencing

following the partial grant of relief pursuant to Appellants’ motion

filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001), claiming their

sentences violate Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000).

Appellants noted timely appeals and their counsel have filed a brief

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there

are no meritorious issues for appeal but raising Apprendi claims.

Appellants were informed of their right to file a pro se supplemental

brief and have not done so. 

Appellants were all convicted of multiple charges for conspiracy

and substantive drug offenses in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 841 and

846 (West Supp. 2001). Young was sentenced to 235 months imprisonment, Ashberth Guerra was sentenced to 324 months imprison2 UNITED STATES v. GUERRA
ment, and Don Guerra was sentenced to 360 months imprisonment.

Young’s guideline range was 235 to 292 months, Ashberth Guerra’s

guideline range was 324 to 405 months imprisonment, and Don Guerra’s guideline range was 360 months of imprisonment to life. 

Assuming, without deciding, that Appellants may assert Apprendi

errors under the procedural posture of this case, we find no reversible

error on resentencing. Appellant Young’s sentence did not exceed the

applicable statutory maximum. See United States v. Promise, 255

F.3d 150, 154-55 (4th Cir. 2001) (en banc). Moreover, the district

court was obliged, under the Guidelines, to impose consecutive sentences on Don and Ashberth Guerra for their multiple convictions to

the extent necessary to achieve a sentence within the guideline range.

United States v. White, 238 F.3d 537, 542-43 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,

___ U.S. ___, 121 S.Ct. 2235 (2001). Hence, Apprendi does not affect

Appellants’ sentences. 

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record and find

no meritorious issues. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s

judgment. This court requires that counsel inform their clients, in

writing, of the clients’ right to petition the Supreme Court of the

United States for further review. If the clients request 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 clients. 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. GUERRA 3