United States v. Edwards , 30 F. App'x 293 ( 2002 )


Menu:
  •                          UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,              
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.
             No. 01-4030
    MICHAEL ANTHONY EDWARDS, a/k/a
    Lanzel Reid, a/k/a Teddy Reid,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
    Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge.
    (CR-98-294-MU)
    Submitted: February 28, 2002
    Decided: March 20, 2002
    Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and
    HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    COUNSEL
    Marshall A. Swann, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. C.
    Nicks Williams, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
    Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    2                     UNITED STATES v. EDWARDS
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
    Local Rule 36(c).
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    Michael Anthony Edwards pled guilty to one count of conspiracy
    to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and crack cocaine, in vio-
    lation of 
    21 U.S.C.A. §§ 841
    (a)(1), 846 (West 1999 & Supp. 2001).
    He appeals his conviction and sentence. Edwards’ attorney has filed
    a brief citing Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967), requesting
    this court conduct a de novo review of the record but stating that, in
    his view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Edwards was
    advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he did not
    file such a brief despite being granted an extension of time to do so.
    In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in
    this case. Our review convinces us that Edwards’ plea was knowing
    and voluntary, and was supported by an adequate factual basis. See
    Fed. R. Crim. P. 11. Edwards’ sentence of 120 months imprisonment
    is within the properly calculated Guideline* range. We have found no
    meritorious issues for appeal, and therefore affirm Edwards’ convic-
    tion 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. 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
    *U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (2000).
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 01-4030

Citation Numbers: 30 F. App'x 293

Judges: Hamilton, King, Michael, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 3/20/2002

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/6/2023