Court Opinion

ID: 1000777
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:45:46.442026+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:38:54.983620
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                      No. 99-4289

TERRY DENNIS,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston.
Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge.
(CR-98-598)

Submitted: December 29, 1999

Decided: January 31, 2000

Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges,
and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

J. Robert Haley, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, South
Carolina, for Appellant. Miller Williams Shealy, Jr., OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina,
for Appellee.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Terry Dennis appeals from a twenty-four month sentence imposed
following his guilty plea to conspiring to possess with the intent to
distribute and to distribute cocaine. Dennis' attorney has filed a brief
in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Coun-
sel states that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but
addresses the following issue: whether the district court erred in fail-
ing to order that Dennis be placed in a drug treatment program. Den-
nis filed a pro se supplemental brief claiming that the district court
erred in failing to include in the judgment a notation that Dennis be
placed in a drug treatment program in a particular institution, and that
the court should have sua sponte departed downward based on post-
conviction rehabilitation and because Dennis' criminal history score
over-represented his criminal history. Because our review of the
record reveals no reversible error, we affirm.

The power to designate an inmate's place of incarceration rests
solely with the Bureau of Prisons. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 3621(b) (West
1985 & Supp. 1999). We further find that the court fully complied
with the requirements of 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553 (West 1985 & Supp.
1999). A review of the record reveals that Dennis was properly sen-
tenced, and there is no evidence that the district court misapprehended
its authority to downwardly depart below the applicable guideline
range. See United States v. Jones, 18 F.3d 1145, 1148 (4th Cir. 1994).

We have examined the entire record in this case in accordance with
the requirements of Anders, and find no meritorious issues for appeal.
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. Coun-

                    2
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

                    3