UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 03-4099

JAMES EDWARD HOOKS, a/k/a Big

James,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.

Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge.

(CR-01-33)

Submitted: July 10, 2003

Decided: July 17, 2003

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

J. Charles Jones, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Robert

John Gleason, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 
OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

James Edward Hooks appeals his conviction and sentence after he

pled guilty to two counts of possession with intent to distribute

cocaine base and marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b), 851

(2000), and one count of use, carry, and possession of a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) (2000). The Government sought an enhanced sentence pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 851 (2000), based upon Hooks’s two

previous felony drug convictions. His attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are

no meritorious issues for appeal but raising the issues of whether two

prior convictions for drug crimes were properly used to enhance

Hooks’s sentence under § 851, and whether Hooks was entitled to a

downward departure based upon substantial assistance. Hooks was

advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but did not do

so. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. 

At sentencing, Hooks objected to an enhanced sentence and

asserted that he had not been convicted of the drug offenses listed in

the information filed by the Government pursuant to § 851. Hooks did

not file a response to the information as required by § 851(c); nor did

he object to the presentence report that listed these two convictions

in the summary of his criminal history, or provide any information or

evidence to demonstrate that these convictions were nonexistent or

invalid. Our review of the record convinces us that the district court

correctly concluded that the existence of these convictions was adequately established and that Hooks’s sentence was properly enhanced.

Hooks’s attorney also stated at sentencing that Hooks had been

unable to receive a downward departure based upon substantial assistance to the Government because Hooks’s religious beliefs precluded

him from providing information implicating others. On appeal, counsel repeats this assertion of an inescapable conflict between the prerequisites for a substantial assistance departure and Hooks’s religious

beliefs. To the extent Hooks asserts error by the district court at sentencing on this basis, we find no error. It is undisputed that Hooks did

not provide any assistance to the Government, and accordingly, he

2 UNITED STATES v. HOOKS
was not entitled to a motion for a downward departure. Moreover,

Hooks’s religious beliefs "are not relevant in the determination of a

sentence." U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5H1.10 (2001). 

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in

this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Hooks’s convictions and sentence. We remand the case to

the district court for correction of a clerical error in the judgment

order. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 36. Specifically, the list of offenses on

page one of the order omits Count 2. This error does not affect the

validity of Hooks’s convictions or sentence. 

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.

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 AND REMANDED

UNITED STATES v. HOOKS 3