Court Opinion

ID: 994735
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 00:27:26.932617+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:37:01.163543
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                     No. 97-4431

JULIUS LOROSA EVANS, a/k/a Touche,
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-96-222)

Submitted: March 17, 1998

Decided: April 22, 1998

Before WIDENER and ERVIN, Circuit Judges, and
PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Lawrence J. Fine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Walter C. Holton, Jr., United States Attorney, Lisa B. Boggs, Assis-
tant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appel-
lee.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Julius Larosa Evans pled guilty to one count of conspir-
acy to possess with intent to distribute crack cocaine in violation of
21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) & (b)(1)(a), 846 (1994). On appeal, Evans's
attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), concluding that there are no meritorious grounds for
appeal but raising one issue: whether the district court erred in
enhancing Evans's sentence three levels for being a manager or a
supervisor of five or more participants under U. S. Sentencing Guide-
lines Manual § 3B1.1(b) (1995). Evans was informed of his right to
file a pro se supplemental brief and has not done so. Because we find
no reversible error, we affirm.

Evans did not file any objections to the presentence report, nor did
he raise any objections during sentencing. "Absent plain error, appel-
late review of a sentence is waived when the defendant fails to object
to the sentence calculation in the district court." United States v.
Grubb, 11 F.3d 426, 440 (4th Cir. 1993). We note, however, that even
if an objection had been made, the district court's conclusion that
Evans organized a criminal activity consisting of five or more people
was not clearly erroneous, since the evidence clearly established that
Evans organized a drug dealing enterprise supervising numerous other
individuals out of his home.

As required by Anders, we have independently reviewed the record
and all pertinent documents. We have considered all possible issues
presented, and we conclude that there are no nonfrivolous grounds for
appeal. Because the record discloses no reversible error, we affirm
Evans's sentence. We deny counsel's motion to withdraw at this time.
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

                    2
believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may
again move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation.
Counsel's motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the cli-
ent. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal con-
tentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    3