United States v. Kenneth W. McLeod ( 2000 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
No. 99-4276
KENNETH WAYNE MCLEOD, a/k/a
Killer,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham.
N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief District Judge.
(CR-98-306)
Submitted: January 20, 2000
Decided: February 2, 2000
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Eric D. Placke, Assistant
Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Walter C. Holton, Jr., United States Attorney, Robert A.J. Lang,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Kenneth Wayne McLeod pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute
cocaine base (crack), see 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (1994), and to carrying
a firearm during a drug trafficking crime. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c)
(West Supp. 1999). He was sentenced to a term of 320 months for the
drug conspiracy and a consecutive 60-month term for the firearms
offense.
McLeod's attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising as a potentially meritorious
issue the three-level adjustment he received for being a manager or
supervisor of other participants in the conspiracy. See U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual § 3B1.1(b) (1998). In two pro se supplemental
briefs, McLeod challenges the role adjustment as well as the district
court's calculation of the base offense level.
At the sentencing hearing, McLeod and his attorney conceded that
the role adjustment was warranted. Consequently, this issue is
reviewed only for plain error. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S.
725, 731-32 (1993). Our review of the record discloses that the infor-
mation in the presentence report amply supported the adjustment and
that no plain error occurred.
In his second pro se supplemental brief, Mcleod suggests that he
should have been sentenced for a conspiracy involving marijuana
because his relevant conduct included marijuana as well as crack. He
relies on Edwards v. United States, 523 U.S. ___, 118 S. Ct. 1475(1998), and other cases in which the defendant was tried for conspir-
ing to traffic in several drugs and the jury returned a general verdict
of guilty, leaving some doubt as to whether the defendant was found
guilty of conspiring to distribute all the drugs charged. However,
because McLeod pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute crack, there
2
is no doubt that the guideline for crack offenses was properly applied
in his case.
Pursuant to Anders, this court has reviewed the record for revers-
ible error and found none. We therefore affirm the conviction 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 fur-
ther review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, then counsel
may move 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.
We therefore affirm the conviction and sentence. 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