UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 02-4756

ANTHONY THOMPSON,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.

C. Weston Houck, District Judge.

(CR-01-790)

Submitted: March 20, 2003

Decided: April 1, 2003

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Hervery B. O. Young, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Florence,

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 

Anthony Thompson pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a

firearm and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000).

The district court sentenced him to an eighty-six-month term of

imprisonment. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the calculation of Thompson’s

offense level but stating that, in his view, there are no meritorious

issues for appeal. Thompson has filed a pro se supplemental brief

raising additional issues. Finding no error, we affirm. 

Counsel raises as a potential issue whether the district court erred

in applying the cross-reference in U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual

§ 2K2.1(c) (2000), when Thompson was not charged with or convicted of assault with intent to commit attempted murder. Thompson

contends in his pro se supplemental brief that the district court should

have applied the rule of lenity to determine his offense level under the

provisions of USSG § 2K2.1(a) and (b). We review the factual findings of the district court for clear error and the court’s legal interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo. See United States v. Jones,

308 F.3d 425, 427 (4th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, __ U.S. __, 71

U.S.L.W. 3566 (U.S. Mar. 3, 2003) (No. 02-8718). Our review of the

record leads us to conclude that the district court properly calculated

Thompson’s offense level. 

In his pro se supplemental brief, Thompson also contends that the

court erred by failing to make sufficient factual findings before adopting the presentence report. Thompson, however, failed to show how

the information in the report was unreliable or inaccurate. See United

States v. Terry, 916 F.2d 157, 162 (4th Cir. 1990). Finally, contrary

to Thompson’s assertion, the Government was not obligated to move

for a downward departure under USSG § 5K1.1, p.s., based upon substantial assistance and, therefore, did not breach the plea agreement.

See United States v. LeRose, 219 F.3d 335, 341-42 (4th Cir. 2000)

(citing Wade v. United States, 504 U.S. 181, 185-86 (1992)). 

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record and find

no meritorious issues on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm. This court

2 UNITED STATES v. THOMPSON
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 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. THOMPSON 3