Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jerome SAUNDERS, II, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-03-17
Citations: 89 F. App'x 851
Docket Number: No. 03-4475
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jerome SAUNDERS, II, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 89
Pages: 851–852

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jerome SAUNDERS, II, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-4475.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted March 11, 2004.
Decided March 17, 2004.
Carl J. Roncaglione, Jr., Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant.
Kasey Warner, United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, R. Gregory McVey, Assistant United States Attorney, Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpubhshed per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jerome Saunders pled guilty to aiding and abetting distribution of cocaine base, 21 U.S.C. § 2, 841(a)(1) (2000). Saunders' counsel has a filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967) raising one possible sentencing issue on appeal, but stating that, in his view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Saunders was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has failed to do so.
Saunders was denied an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility under U.S. Sentencing Guideline Manual § 3E1.1 (2002) based on three positive drug tests and his unauthorized departure from the jurisdiction while on pre-sentence release. We conclude the district court did not commit clear error in its denial of the adjustment. See United States v. Underwood, 970 F.2d 1336 (4th Cir.1992); USSG § 3E1.1, comment, (n.3).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Saunders' 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 chent 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