UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 00-4404

BRYANT KEITH HORTON,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk.

Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge.

(CR-99-170)

Submitted: January 31, 2001

Decided: February 20, 2001

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Christopher F. Cowan, COWAN, NORTH & LAFRATTA, L.L.P.,

Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Helen F. Fahey, United States

Attorney, Darryl J. Mitchell, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 
OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Bryant Keith Horton appeals his conviction and sentence for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (1994). Horton pled not guilty to the charge

but was convicted by a jury and subsequently sentenced to fifty-two

months incarceration and three years of supervised release. Horton’s

counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738 (1967). Horton filed a pro se supplemental brief. Three

issues are presented. 

First, Horton challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support

his conviction. The Government presented evidence establishing that

Horton was a convicted felon, a police officer saw him throw a firearm while running from law enforcement officers, and the firearm

recovered from the scene contained Horton’s fingerprint. Viewing the

evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, we find this

was sufficient to convict Horton. Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S.

60, 80 (1942). 

Second, Horton challenges the district court’s denial of his motion

for downward departure. Since the district court was aware of its

authority to depart, but chose to deny Horton’s motion in the exercise

of its discretion, this issue is not subject to appellate review. United

States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 876 (4th Cir. 1996); United States v.

Bayerle, 898 F.2d 28, 31 (4th Cir. 1990).

Third, Horton asserts he was never read his rights when taken into

custody. Since Horton made no statements upon arrest, and since the

Government never sought to use anything Horton said to present its

case, there was no violation of Horton’s rights. Miranda v. Arizona,

384 U.S. 436 (1966). 

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

this case and find no other meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore

affirm Horton’s conviction and sentence. This court requires that

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

2 UNITED STATES v. HORTON
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 in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

UNITED STATES v. HORTON 3