Court Opinion

ID: 999734
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:30:18.564066+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:37:53.429319
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                      No. 99-4133

YANCY NATHANIEL BOWMAN,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham.
James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge.
(CR-98-255)

Submitted: August 10, 1999

Decided: September 24, 1999

Before ERVIN,* MOTZ, and TRAXLER,
Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury, Jr.,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Walter C. Holton, Jr., United States Attorney, Sandra J.
_________________________________________________________________
*Judge Ervin participated in the consideration of this case but died
prior to the time the decision was filed. The decision is filed by a quorum
of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).
Hairston, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Caro-
lina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Yancy Nathaniel Bowman appeals his 168-month sentence
imposed after a guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute
crack cocaine and cocaine hydrochloride, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A.
§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) (West 1994 & Supp. 1999). Bowman's attorney
has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967), raising one issue but stating that, in his view, there are
no meritorious grounds for appeal. Bowman was notified of his right
to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has failed to do so. Finding
no reversible error, we affirm.

Bowman challenges his sentence on the ground that the district
court erred in calculating the amount of drugs used to establish a base
offense level of thirty-eight. Because Bowman withdrew his objection
to the amount of drugs at the sentencing hearing, he has forfeited
review of this claim, absent plain error. See United States v. Wells,
163 F.3d 889, 900 (4th Cir. 1998). We find no plain error in the dis-
trict court's determination of the amount of drugs attributable to Bow-
man. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732-37 (1993).

As required by Anders, we have examined the entire record and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm Bowman's convic-
tion and sentence and deny counsel's motion for leave to withdraw.
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

                     2
move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Coun-
sel's motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    3