Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael O. PRAYLOW, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-12-03
Citations: 51 F. App'x 454
Docket Number: No. 02-4296
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael O. PRAYLOW, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 51
Pages: 454–455

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael O. PRAYLOW, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 02-4296.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 31, 2002.
Decided Dec. 3, 2002.
Robert N. Boorda, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Elizabeth Jean Howard, Office of the United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appel-lee.
Before NIEMEYER and DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Michael O. Praylow appeals his forty-six month sentence imposed pursuant to his conviction upon a guilty plea to one count of conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute crack cocaine. Praylow's counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), raising two possible issues on appeal but stating that, in his view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Although Praylow was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, he has not done so.
Praylow first argues that his indictment was defective for failing to charge a specific amount of drugs, in violation of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Because Praylow was sentenced to far less than the 240-month maximum sentence under 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(b)(1)(C) (West Supp.2002), where no specific drug amount is charged, the indictment is not defective. See United States v. White, 238 F.3d 537, 542 (4th Cir.), cert, denied, 532 U.S. 1074, 121 S.Ct. 2235, 150 L.Ed.2d 225 (2001).
Praylow next contends that the district court incorrectly calculated the amount of drugs for which he was responsible. The Government bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence the quantity of drugs for which a defendant should be held accountable at sentencing. United States v. Gilliam, 987 F.2d 1009, 1013 (4th Cir.1993). This can be established when a defendant fails to properly object to a recommended finding in a pre-sentence report ("PSR") that the court determines to be rehable. Id. Because Praylow did not object to the PSR, the district court was free to adopt the PSR's findings. We find that the court did not clearly err in so doing, particularly in light of the fact that, even on appeal, Praylow presents no evidence that the PSR was based on unreliable or inaccurate information.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Praylow's conviction and sentence. 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 move in the court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel's motion must state 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.