Court Opinion

ID: 1002429
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 18:11:04.837815+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:30:09.852404
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                    No. 00-4011

CLARENCE JUNIOR HERNDON,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Virginia, at Danville.
Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge.
(CR-99-21)

Submitted: August 29, 2000

Decided: September 15, 2000

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Jon I. Davey, LAW OFFICE OF JON I. DAVEY, Danville, Virginia,
for Appellant. Donald Ray Wolthuis, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Clarence Junior Herndon appeals his convictions pursuant to his
guilty plea and ten-year sentence for cocaine-related offenses. Hern-
don's attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that Herndon's sentence is excessive.
Counsel concluded, however, that there were no meritorious issues
for appeal. Herndon was notified of his right to file a supplemental
brief, but he has not done so. We affirm.

As required by statute, the district court sentenced Herndon to two
consecutive five-year terms. Upon our review of the record, we find
that the court had no power to impose a lower sentence, see 18
U.S.C.A. § 924(c) (West 2000); 21 U.S.C.A.§ 841(b)(1)(B) (West
1999), and that, in any event, we may not review its failure to depart
downward, see United States v. Ivester, 75 F.3d 182, 183 (4th Cir.
1996). Furthermore, in accordance with the requirements of Anders,
we have reviewed the record for potential error and have found none.
Therefore, we affirm Herndon's convictions and sentence.

This court ordinarily requires that counsel inform his client, in
writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States
for further review. Because the record demonstrates that Herndon is
illiterate, we direct counsel to ensure that Herndon receives both oral
and written notice of this right. If Herndon 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 representa-
tion. Counsel's motion must state that a copy thereof was served on
Herndon and that the motion was explained to him orally. We dis-
pense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    2