Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gerald Alonzo MOORE, Defendant-Appellant; United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gerald Alonzo Moore, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-01-15
Citations: 23 F. App'x 184
Docket Number: Nos. 01-4444, 01-4445
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gerald Alonzo MOORE, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gerald Alonzo Moore, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 23
Pages: 184–185

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gerald Alonzo MOORE, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gerald Alonzo Moore, Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 01-4444, 01-4445.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 27, 2001.
Decided Jan. 15, 2002.
Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, William C. Ingram, Jr., First Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Benjamin H. White, Jr., United States Attorney, Robert M. Hamilton, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Gerald Alonzo Moore pled guilty to two separate one-count indictments charging him with two different bank robberies. Moore's attorney 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 represents that there are no arguable issues of merit in this appeal. Nevertheless, in his brief, counsel addresses the possibility that the district court should have granted Moore's motion for a downward departure. Although advised of his right to do so, Moore did not file a pro se supplemental brief. Because we find that the district court's decision is not reviewable, we dismiss the appeal.
A district court's refusal to grant a downward departure is not reviewable on appeal unless the court erroneously believed that it lacked the authority to depart. United States v. Bayerle, 898 F.2d 28, 30-31 (4th Cir.1990). The record here clearly shows the district court recognized that it had the authority to grant Moore's motion, but declined to do so under the circumstances.
We have examined the entire record in this case in accordance with the requirements of Anders and find no meritorious issues for appeal. The 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 therefore dismiss Moore's appeal. We also deny counsel's current motion to withdraw. 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.
DISMISSED.