UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 97-4509

RON SOWELL, a/k/a Mike,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.

Richard L. Voorhees, Chief District Judge.

(CR-96-71-V)

Submitted: June 30, 1998

Decided: July 31, 1998

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Jesse J. Waldon, Jr., Matthews, North Carolina, for Appellant. Mark

T. Calloway, United States Attorney, Frank D. Whitney, Assistant

United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Ron Sowell pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with the intent

to distribute and to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846

(1994); and possession with the intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (1994). The district court sentenced

Sowell to 131 months' imprisonment with five years of supervised

release for each count to run concurrently, and a $100 assessment.

Sowell appeals his sentence. Sowell's attorney has filed a brief in

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting

that the district court denied Sowell due process and a fair sentence

by considering only the recommendation of the Government and not

the full range of factors dictated by U.S. Sentencing Guidelines

Manual § 5K1.1 (1997).

Sowell became involved in a conspiracy to possess and distribute

cocaine in 1986. In February 1996, Sowell was arrested and later

indicted. Immediately following his arrest, Sowell began cooperating

with the Government. At sentencing, the Government moved for a

downward departure, which the district court granted. The district

court departed from a calculated sentencing range of 262 to 327

months to 131 months.

A defendant may not appeal the extent of a downward departure

when the resulting sentence is within the statutory limits and below

the properly calculated sentencing guidelines range. See United States

v. Hill, 70 F.3d 321, 323-24 (4th Cir. 1990). Moreover, when the sentencing court has departed in the defendant's favor, 18 U.S.C. § 3742

(1994) does not provide for an appeal from the sentence. Only the

government may appeal a downward departure. See 18 U.S.C.

§ 3742(b). Therefore, we affirm Sowell's sentence.

In accordance with the requirement of Anders, we have examined

the entire record in this case and find no meritorious issues for appeal.

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 petition be filed, but counsel

believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may

 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 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