United States v. Coleman , 56 F. App'x 151 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 02-4223
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    REGINA COLEMAN,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Columbia. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CR-
    01-363)
    Submitted:   February 10, 2003         Decided:     February 20, 2003
    Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Marcia G. Shein, LAW OFFICE OF MARCIA G. SHEIN, P.C., Decatur,
    Georgia, for Appellant.   Marshall Prince, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
    STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Regina Coleman appeals her convictions and sentence pursuant
    to violations of      
    21 U.S.C. § 841
    (a)(1) (2000) and 
    18 U.S.C. §§ 922
    (g)(1) and 924(a) (2000). Coleman’s counsel has filed a brief
    in accordance with Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967).
    Although counsel states that there are no meritorious issues for
    appeal, she argues that the district court improperly used the
    minimum   statutory   sentence    as    the   guideline    sentence   when
    determining a downward departure.       Coleman did not file a pro se
    supplemental brief or move for an extension of time within the
    thirty day filing period. We deny Coleman’s motion for a thirty day
    extension to file the supplemental brief.           The United States has
    not filed a brief.    In accordance with Anders, we have considered
    counsel’s brief and have examined the entire record for meritorious
    issues.   We find no error and affirm.
    On   appeal,   Coleman’s    counsel   argues    the   district   court
    improperly used the statutory minimum term of imprisonment from
    which to depart downward.       We find this issue is without merit.
    United States v. Pillow, 
    191 F.3d 403
    , 407-08 (4th Cir. 1999).
    In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record
    in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.           We
    therefore affirm Coleman’s convictions and sentence. Because this
    court requires that counsel inform her client, in writing, of her
    right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
    2
    further review we deny counsel’s motion to withdraw. 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.    We dispense
    with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
    adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
    would not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-4223

Citation Numbers: 56 F. App'x 151

Judges: King, Per Curiam, Widener, Williams

Filed Date: 2/20/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/6/2023