UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 02-4334

THORNTON RICE,

Defendant-Appellant. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 02-4348

ANNIE RUTH FERGUSON, a/k/a

Cookie,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg.

G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge.

(CR-01-886)

Submitted: November 26, 2002

Decided: January 3, 2003

Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 
COUNSEL

William H. Ehlies, II, Greenville, South Carolina; Janis Richardson

Hall, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellants. Elizabeth Jean Howard, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville,

South Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

In these consolidated appeals, Thornton Rice and Annie Ruth Ferguson appeal their convictions and 130-month and 60-month custodial sentences, respectively, following the district court’s acceptance

of their guilty pleas to one count of conspiring to distribute cocaine

in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000). In their briefs filed by counsel

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Rice and Ferguson each challenge the district court’s decision to sentence them at

the low end of the relevant guidelines range. Ferguson’s brief also

challenges the adequacy of the district court’s colloquy pursuant to

Fed. R. Crim. P. 11.* Finding no error, we affirm. 

First, our review of the record indicates that both Rice and Ferguson were sentenced at the low end of a properly calculated guidelines

range. Such challenges to a court’s exercise of discretion in setting a

sentence within a properly calculated sentencing range are not

*Rice and Ferguson filed pro se supplemental briefs raising additional

issues. However, we find Rice’s contention that the Bureau of Prisons

improperly extended his sentence by seven months inappropriate, as the

additional seven months Rice identifies are attributable to a separate sentence imposed for his violation of his supervised release. Nor do we find

merit in Ferguson’s challenge to the adequacy of her indictment. 

2 UNITED STATES v. RICE
reviewable on appeal. United States v. Porter, 909 F.2d 789, 794 (4th

Cir. 1990). 

Second, our review of Ferguson’s Rule 11 colloquy indicates that

the district court properly ascertained that Ferguson was competent to

enter a plea, reviewed the nature of the charges against her, the rights

she would forego by pleading guilty, and her potential sentence.

Because the court’s colloquy with Ferguson indicates her plea was

knowingly and voluntarily entered, we find no error. See United

States v. Puckett, 61 F.3d 1092, 1099 (4th Cir. 1995); United States

v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114 (4th Cir. 1991). 

As required by Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and

have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm both

Rice’s and Ferguson’s convictions and sentences. The 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 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

UNITED STATES v. RICE 3