Court Opinion

ID: 1000597
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:43:10.542617+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:24:43.219079
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                       No. 99-4385

JEFFREY SCOTT BAILEY,
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-98-344)

Submitted: December 16, 1999

Decided: January 13, 2000

Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and
BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender; Eric D. Placke, Assistant
Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Walter C. Holton, Jr., United States Attorney, Michael F. Joseph,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Jeffrey Scott Bailey pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a con-
victed felon, see 18 U.S.C.A. § 922(g)(1) (West Supp. 1999), and was
sentenced to a term of sixty-three months imprisonment. Bailey's
attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967), raising one issue but indicating that, in his view, there are
no meritorious issues for appeal. Bailey has been informed of his right
to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not filed a brief. After a
thorough review of the record, we affirm the conviction and sentence.

In the Anders brief, counsel challenges the district court's decision
to impose sentence at the top of the guideline range of 51-63 months.
We have held, however, that a sentencing court has complete discre-
tion to impose sentence at any point within a correctly calculated
guideline range, and the appeals court lacks jurisdiction to review its
decision. See United States v. Jones, 18 F.3d 1145, 1151 (4th Cir.
1994). Bailey made no objection to the calculation of the guideline
range in the district court, thereby forfeiting the issue, and no error
is evident in the record.

Pursuant to Anders, this court has reviewed the record for revers-
ible error and found none. We therefore affirm the 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, then counsel
may move 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

                     2