Court Opinion

ID: 994871
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 00:29:05.051568+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:19:03.052481
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                    No. 97-4126

DONALD HOLDEN, a/k/a 8-Ball,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston.
David C. Norton, District Judge.
(CR-94-589)

Submitted: March 17, 1998

Decided: April 27, 1998

Before HAMILTON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and
PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Donald Budman, SOLOMON, BUDMAN, STRICKER &
SCHWARTZ, L.L.P., Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant.
Robert Hayden Bickerton, Assistant United States Attorney, Charles-
ton, South Carolina, for Appellee.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Donald Holden pled guilty pursuant to a plea bargain to conspiracy
to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21
U.S.C.A. § 846 (West Supp. 1997); and conspiracy to launder money,
in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1956(h) (West Supp. 1997). The district
court sentenced Holden to 168 months to be served concurrently, fol-
lowed by five years of supervised release. Holden appeals his convic-
tion and sentence.

Holden's counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). He acknowledges that the guideline
range was fixed by stipulation of the parties, and the court sentenced
within that range, articulating its reasons for sentencing toward the
top of the range. Holden's counsel provided him with a copy of the
Anders brief and informed him of his right to file a pro se supplemen-
tal brief. Holden has not done so. We affirm.

Holden was a member of a drug ring that brought cocaine from
Florida to the greater Charleston, South Carolina area over a number
of years. Holden distributed the drugs in Charleston and sometimes
transported money to Florida. Holden was indicted on six counts of
a fourteen-count indictment. He pled guilty to two conspiracy counts,
and the remaining counts were dismissed. Counsel for Holden raises
the propriety of the district court's sentencing Holden toward the top
of the guideline range, but concedes that a court's sentencing within
those limits is reviewed only for gross abuse of discretion. United
States v. Owens, 902 F.2d 1154, 1157 (4th Cir. 1990). The district
court stated that the sentence imposed was at the upper end of the
range because of Holden's criminal history. We perceive no gross
abuse of discretion in the district court's sentence.

In accordance with Anders, we have examined the entire record in
this case and find no reversible error. We therefore affirm Holden's

                    2
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 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 repre-
sentation. Counsel's motion must state that a copy thereof was served
on the client.

We deny the Government's motion to file a brief in response as
moot. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court
and oral argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    3