UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 01-4258

HASSAN EMANUEL REEVES,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.

Catherine C. Blake, District Judge.

(CR-98-192-CCB)

Submitted: February 27, 2002

Decided: April 1, 2002

Before WILKINS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Alan C. Drew, HOULON & BERMAN, L.L.C., New Carrollton,

Maryland, for Appellant. Thomas M. DiBiagio, United States Attorney, John F. Purcell, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore,

Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Hassan Emanuel Reeves was found guilty of conspiracy to possess

with intent to distribute heroin, cocaine, and cocaine base (Count 1)

and for possession with intent to distribute cocaine base (Count 5).

This court affirmed Reeves’ convictions on direct appeal but vacated

and remanded Reeves’ 151-month sentence for Count 1 in light of

United States v. Rhynes, 196 F.3d 207 (4th Cir. 1999), vacated on

other grounds, 218 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2000) (en banc). On remand,

the district court lowered Reeves’ sentence to 121 months of imprisonment. In the instant appeal, Reeves’ attorney has filed a brief under

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel states that there

are no meritorious grounds for appeal but raises the following issue:

whether Reeves’ 121-month sentence is invalid in light of Apprendi

v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). For the reasons that follow, we

affirm. 

Because Reeves’ sentence for the conspiracy count is below the

statutory maximum under 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(b)(1)(C) (West 1999 &

Supp. 2001), he has not been prejudiced under Apprendi. United

States v. Kinter, 235 F.3d 192, 201-02 (4th Cir. 2000), cert. denied,

532 U.S. 939 (2001). Also, as noted by the Government, there is no

Rhynes error. Finally, we find no merit to the issues raised in Reeves’

pro se supplemental brief and deny his motion to dismiss his counsel.

We have examined the entire record* in this case in accordance

with the requirements of Anders, and find no meritorious issues for

appeal. Accordingly, we affirm. 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

*Because this case is back before the court after remand, our scope of

review is limited. 

2 UNITED STATES v. REEVES
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 deny Reeves’ motions to dismiss his

attorney, for judicial review, and 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. REEVES 3