Court Opinion

ID: 990161
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-03 23:17:08.980539+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:35:31.373798
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                     No. 95-5498

RICKEY JACK FLETCHER,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia.
Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge.
(CR-94-985-19)

Submitted: July 25, 1996

Decided: August 14, 1996

Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS,
Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

John D. (Jay) Elliott, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Mar-
garet B. Seymour, United States Attorney, Beth Caldwell, Assistant
United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

PER CURIAM:

Rickey Jack Fletcher pled guilty to being a felon in possession of
a firearm, 18 U.S.C.A. § 922(g) (West Supp. 1996), and was sen-
tenced to a term of 87 months imprisonment. Fletcher's attorney has
filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), contending that the district court erred in refusing to depart
on three grounds, but indicating that, in his view, there are no merito-
rious issues for appeal. Williams was notified of his right to file a pro
se supplemental brief, but has not done so.1

The district court decided not to depart downward on the grounds
of diminished capacity, USSG § 5K2.13, p.s., 2 or victim's conduct,
USSG § 5K2.10, p.s., or overstated criminal history, USSG § 4A1.3,
p.s. The court's discretionary decision not to depart is not reviewable
on appeal. United States v. Bayerle, 898 F.2d 28, 31 (4th Cir.), cert.
denied, 498 U.S. 819 (1990).

In accordance with Anders, we have examined the entire record in
this case and find no meritorious issues for appeal. 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 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 representation. Counsel's motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on the client.
_________________________________________________________________
1 Fletcher did write his attorney with the suggestion that the Supreme
Court's decision in United States v. Lopez, ___ U.S. ___, 63 U.S.L.W.
4343 (U.S. Apr. 26, 1995) (No. 93-1260), might apply in his case. Lopez
does not assist Fletcher. We find persuasive two circuits which have con-
sidered and rejected constitutional challenges to§ 922(g) in light of
Lopez. See United States v. Mosby, 60 F.3d 454, 456 (8th Cir. 1995),
cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 64 U.S.L.W. 3558 (U.S. Feb. 20, 1996) (No.
95-7053); United States v. Hanna, 55 F.3d 1456, 1462 n.2 (9th Cir.
1995).
2 United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual (Nov.
1994).

                     2
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
tions are adequately presented in the record and briefs, and oral argu-
ment would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    3