UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 96-4504

CARLTON C. SHANNON,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.

C. Weston Houck, Chief District Judge.

(CR-95-230)

Submitted: April 8, 1997

Decided: April 24, 1997

Before MURNAGHAN and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and

PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

G. Wells Dickson, Jr., LAW OFFICES OF G. WELLS DICKSON,

JR., Kingstree, South Carolina, for Appellant. Alfred William

Walker

Bethea, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina,

for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Pursuant to a guilty plea, Carlton C. Shannon was convicted of one

count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to

distribute marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (1994) and 18 U.S.C.

§ 2 (1994). Shannon's counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders

v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging whether the district

court erred in denying Shannon's motion for a downward departure

from the Sentencing Guidelines* based on reduced mental capacity.

Finding no error, we affirm.

Shannon was a member of a loosely-knit conspiracy which distributed marijuana in the Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, area, and he

was

apprehended during a sting operation after he agreed to sell twenty

pounds of marijuana to a Government informant. Prior to sentencing,

Shannon made a motion for downward departure due to his reduced

mental capacity at the time of the offenses, claiming that he was

suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder caused by his service as

an

infantryman in Vietnam. After hearing evidence from both sides, the

district court denied the motion.

Where the district court recognizes that it has the authority to

grant

a motion for downward departure, its refusal to do so is not

reviewable. United States v. Bayerle, 898 F.2d 28, 29-31 (4th Cir. 1990).

We

have examined the entire record in this case in accordance with the

requirements of Anders, and find no meritorious issues for appeal.

The 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

_________________________________________________________________

*United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual (Nov.

1995).

2

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 affirm the district court's judgment order. 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

3