Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alvin Jerones PURDIE, Jr., a/k/a Purdie Boy, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-03-20
Citations: 14 F. App'x 138
Docket Number: No. 95-5408
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alvin Jerones PURDIE, Jr., a/k/a Purdie Boy, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 14
Pages: 138–139

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alvin Jerones PURDIE, Jr., a/k/a Purdie Boy, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 95-5408.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 20, 2000.
Decided March 20, 2001.
Spurgeon Fields, III, Raleigh, NC, for appellant.
Janice McKenzie Cole, United i States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, NC, for appellee.
Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Alvin Jerones Purdie, Jr., was convicted by a jury of one count of conspiracy to possess crack cocaine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (1994), one count of using a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime and aiding and abetting same, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2, 924(c) (West 2000), and two counts of possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (1994). The district court imposed a 264 month term of imprisonment for each of the drug convictions, to be served concurrently, and a 60 month term of imprisonment for the firearm conviction, to be served consecutively to the drug sentences. Purdie'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), in which he raises the following two issues, but claims that neither has merit: (1) whether sufficient evidence supported Purdie's drug convictions, and (2) whether the district court erred in determining the quantity of drugs attributable to Purdie. In addition, counsel contends that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the firearm conviction. Purdie was informed of the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not done so. We affirm the convictions and sentences.
"The verdict of [the] jury must be sustained if there is substantial evidence, taking the view most favorable to the Government, to support it." Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942). The Court must also "allow the Government the benefit of all reasonable inferences from the facts proven to those sought to be established." United States v. Tresvant, 677 F.2d 1018, 1021 (4th Cir.1982). We find that there was substantial evidence sufficient to sustain all the convictions.
In addition, we find that the court was not clearly erroneous in ascertaining the amount of drugs attributed to Purdie in order to determine the offense level. United States v. Randall, 171 F.3d 195, 210 (4th Cir.1999).
In accordance with the requirements of Anders, we have considered the entire record on appeal and find that there was no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the convictions and sentences. 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 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.
. We are assuming for purposes of decision only that the appeal is governed by Anders, notwithstanding the presence of one fully briefed issue.
. We have considered the effect of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000) and find that the 264 month term of imprisonment for the drug convictions did not affect Purdie's substantial rights. United States v. White, 238 F.3d 537 (4th Cir.2001).