Court Opinion

ID: 998295
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:09:02.038392+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:27:41.786887
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.
                                                                       No. 98-4145
LYNWOOD HERBERT JARELS, a/k/a
Lynwood Herbert Coleman,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
James P. Jones, District Judge.
(CR-97-55)

Submitted: January 29, 1999

Decided: April 1, 1999

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

G. Steven Agee, OSTERHOUDT, FERGUSON, NATT, AHERON &
AGEE, P.C., Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. Robert P. Crouch, Jr.,
United States Attorney, Sharon Burnham, Assistant United States
Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Lynwood Herbert Jarels appeals from his convictions pursuant to
his guilty plea for possession of cocaine and methamphetamine with
intent to distribute and possession of a firearm with an obliterated
serial number in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C) (1994), and 18
U.S.C.A. § 924(a)(1)(B) (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We affirm.

Jarels' attorney filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), raising as a potentially meritorious issue the district
court's denial of Jarels' motion to withdraw his guilty plea. We have
reviewed each of the allegations of error cited below and on appeal
and conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in
denying Jarels' motion. See United States v. Wilson, 81 F.3d 1300,
1305 (4th Cir. 1996) (providing standard).

Pursuant to Anders, this court has reviewed the record for potential
error and has found none. Therefore, we affirm Jarels' conviction and
sentence. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing,
of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for fur-
ther review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel
believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may
move 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 argu-
ment would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                     2