United States v. Waddell , 213 F. App'x 205 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4539
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
STANLEY LEON WADDELL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,
District Judge. (1:05-cr-00347-NCT)
Submitted: January 18, 2007 Decided: January 22, 2007
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James E. Quander, Jr., QUANDER & RUBAIN, P.A., Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra Jane Hairston, Assistant United
States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Stanley Leon Waddell appeals his conviction and sentence
for possession with intent to distribute cocaine base. Waddell
pled guilty to the charge and was sentenced as a career offender to
190 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Waddell’s counsel has filed
a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
stating that in counsel’s opinion, there are no meritorious issues
for appeal. Waddell has filed a pro se supplemental brief
challenging his sentence and arguing that: (1) the court should
have granted a downward departure from the calculated sentencing
range on the basis of mental and emotional conditions caused by his
drug addiction; and (2) his sentence was unconstitutional because
the prior convictions used to enhance his sentence were not charged
in the indictment, admitted, or proved to a jury beyond a
reasonable doubt.
Waddell’s claim that he was entitled to a downward
departure from the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range based on
mental and emotional conditions is not supported by the record.
Moreover, even if counsel had sought a departure, the court’s
decision whether to grant it would have been entirely
discretionary. United States v. Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 434 (4th
Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2054 (2006). The court’s
statements at sentencing indicate that it would not have
entertained such a request. In addition, Waddell’s assertion that
- 2 -
his sentence was unconstitutionally enhanced is foreclosed by this
circuit’s precedent. See United States v. Cheek, 415 F.3d 349,
352-54 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 640 (2005)(prior
convictions need not be charged in the indictment, admitted by the
defendant or proved to a jury).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm Waddell’s conviction and sentence. This court
requires that counsel inform his client, in writing of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review.
If Waddell requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes
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 Waddell.
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 -