UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-4398

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

FREDERICK LAMONT SMITH, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 08-4399

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

SCOTTIE RAY EDGEWORTH, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 08-4615

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 
FREDERICK LAMONT SMITH, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 08-4620

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

KENYON DAJUAN GAITHER, a/k/a Ken Ken, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District 

of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District 

Judge. (4:07-cr-00208-TLW-1; 4:07-cr-00208-TLW-4; 4:07-cr00208-TLW-6) 

Submitted: May 20, 2009 Decided: June 11, 2009 

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

D. Craig Brown, THE LAW OFFICE OF D. CRAIG BROWN, Florence, 

South Carolina; John M. Ervin, III, ERVIN LAW OFFICE, 

Darlington, South Carolina; Janis Richardson Hall, Greenville, 

South Carolina, for Appellants. Arthur Bradley Parham, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

2 
PER CURIAM: 

 Frederick Lamont Smith, Scottie Ray Edgeworth, and 

Kenyon Dajuan Gaither appeal the district court’s judgments 

imposing sentences of 220, 240, and 240 months’ imprisonment, 

respectively, following their guilty pleas to conspiracy to 

possess with intent to distribute fifty grams or more of cocaine 

base and five kilograms or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 

U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), and 846 (2006). On appeal, 

counsel for Smith, Edgeworth, and Gaither filed a brief pursuant 

to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), noting no 

meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether the 

district court complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11. Gaither filed 

a pro se supplemental brief, contending his sentence was 

improperly enhanced under 21 U.S.C. § 851 (2006). Finding no 

error, we affirm. 

 We have reviewed the record and conclude that the 

district court complied with the requirements of Fed. R. Crim. 

P. 11. We further find that the district court did not abuse 

its discretion in sentencing Smith, Edgeworth, and Gaither, and 

imposed sentences that are procedurally and substantively 

reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 

(2007) (review of sentence is for abuse of discretion). We 

particularly note that the 240-month sentences imposed on 

3 
4 

Edgeworth and Gaither were the minimum sentences statutorily 

required. 

 In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire 

record in these cases and have found no meritorious issues for 

appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgments. 

This court requires that counsel inform their clients, in 

writing, of their right to petition the Supreme Court of the 

United States for further review. If the clients request that 

petitions be filed, but counsel believes that such filing 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