Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Larry CANN, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-02-14
Citations: 56 F. App'x 135
Docket Number: No. 01-4989
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Larry CANN, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 56
Pages: 135–136

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Larry CANN, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 01-4989.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 27, 2003.
Decided Feb. 14, 2003.
Johnny E. Watson, Sr., Law Office of Johnny E. Watson, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Eric William Rusch-ky, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Larry Cann, Jr. pled guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement to conspiracy to distribute controlled substances in a correctional institution, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), 846 (2000). The district court sentenced Cann to 121 months imprisonment. 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 the Anders brief, Cann's counsel raises two issues relating to the application of the sentencing guidelines, both of which counsel ultimately concluded were not meritorious: whether the district court erred in applying a two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice and whether the district court erred in not reducing Cann's offense level for acceptance of responsibility. Cann was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but failed to do so.
Generally, we review the district court's application of the sentencing guidelines for clear error as to factual findings and de novo as to legal determinations. United States v. Blake, 81 F.3d 498, 503 (4th Cir.1996). However, because Cann did not raise any objections at his sentencing hear ing, our review is for plain error, see United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-32, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993). Having carefully considered the arguments raised on Cann's behalf, we find no error, plain or otherwise.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Cann's conviction and sentence. We require 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 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.