Court Opinion

ID: 1001742
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 18:00:21.340738+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:18.082489
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.
                                                                    No. 99-4407
KENNETH M. MONTGOMERY, JR., a/k/a
Richard E. Main,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Robert E. Payne, District Judge.
(CR-98-289)

Submitted: May 10, 2000

Decided: June 8, 2000

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

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Reginald M. Barley, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Helen F.
Fahey, United States Attorney, David T. Maguire, Assistant United
States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Kenneth Montgomery, Jr., appeals from his multiple convictions
and life sentence. Montgomery's attorney has filed a brief in accor-
dance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising several
issues but stating that, in his view, there are no meritorious issues for
appeal. Montgomery was informed of his right to file a pro se supple-
mental brief but has failed to do so. Finding no reversible error, we
affirm.

First, we do not find that the Government failed to timely bring
Montgomery to trial under the Juvenile Delinquency Act. See 18
U.S.C. § 5036 (West 1985 & Supp. 1999). Montgomery was detained
as an adult and was originally held on charges stemming from adult
conduct. The fact that some of Montgomery's criminal conduct com-
menced when Montgomery was a juvenile is without moment. See
United States v. Spoone, 741 F.2d 680, 687 (4th Cir. 1984) (authoriz-
ing incorporation of juvenile conduct in adult prosecution of continu-
ing criminal conduct). Second, we find sufficient evidence supports
Montgomery's convictions for Count 1, a violation of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C.
§ 1962(c) (1994), and Count 3, murder in the aid of drug trafficking
and aiding and abetting. See Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60,
74-75 (1942).

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in
this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We there-
fore affirm Montgomery's convictions and sentence. This court
requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to peti-
tion 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

                     2
that a copy thereof was served on the client. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre-
sented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    3
e