Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Farnardo Manchini DUPONT, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-08-02
Citations: 39 F. App'x 938
Docket Number: No. 02-4117
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Farnardo Manchini DUPONT, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 39
Pages: 938–939

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Farnardo Manchini DUPONT, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 02-4117.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted July 25, 2002.
Decided Aug. 2, 2002.
Debra Y. Chapman, Debra Y. Chapman, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Marshall Prince, Office of the United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Farnardo M. Dupont appeals from his conviction and seventy-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to armed bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2113(a), (d) (West 2000). Dupont's counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), stating that there were no meritorious issues for appeal, but addressing the possibility that Dupont's guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered. Dupont was informed of his right to file a pro se brief, but has not done so. Because our review of the record discloses no reversible error, we affirm Dupont's conviction and sentence.
We find that Dupont's guilty plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered after a thorough hearing pursuant to Fed. R.Crim.P. 11. Dupont was properly advised as to his rights, the offense charged, and the maximum sentence for the offense. The court also determined that there was an independent factual basis for the plea and that the plea was not coerced or influenced by any promises. See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 31, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970); United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 119-20 (4th Cir.1991).
We also find that the district court properly computed Dupont's offense level and criminal history category and correctly determined the applicable guideline range of seventy to eighty-seven months. The court's imposition of a sentence within the properly calculated range is not reviewable. United States v. Jones, 18 F.3d 1145, 1151 (4th Cir.1994).
As required by Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Dupont's conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform her 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.