Court Opinion

ID: 988917
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-03 22:59:27.902822+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:44:03.302564
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                     No. 94-5930

WILLIAM A. BROWN,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia.
Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior District Judge.
(CR-94-2)

Submitted: March 21, 1996

Decided: April 2, 1996

Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and
BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

John D. Delgado, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. J. Preston
Strom, Jr., United States Attorney, Beth Caldwell, Assistant United
States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

PER CURIAM:

William A. Brown appeals his conviction and sentence on a guilty
plea on a charge of possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of
18 U.S.C.A. § 922(g) (West Supp. 1995). Brown's attorney has filed
a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
asserting that the judge erred in sentencing Brown to the "maximum"
allowable under the guidelines, but concluding that there were no
meritorious grounds for appeal. Brown was notified of his right to file
an additional brief, which he did, claiming violations of his constitu-
tional rights due to: (1) his alleged failure to receive a warrant or
indictment on the charged offense; (2) the district court's allegedly
erroneous application of the sentencing guidelines; and (3) his dual
convictions in state and federal court for the same offense.

In accordance with the requirements of Anders , we have examined
the entire record and find no meritorious issues for appeal. We find
that Brown's guideline range was properly calculated pursuant to the
United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual. As such,
the district judge's imposition of a sentence within that range does not
state an appealable question under 18 U.S.C.A. § 3742 (West 1985 &
Supp. 1995). See United States v. Porter, 909 F.2d 789, 794 (4th Cir.
1990). In addition, we find the additional issues Brown raised in his
supplemental brief to be without merit.

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. 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