United States v. Rosemond , 86 F. App'x 639 ( 2004 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4579
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CALVIN RICO ROSEMOND,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (CR-02-435)
Submitted: January 29, 2004 Decided: February 9, 2004
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Barlow Loggins, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Regan Alexandra
Pendleton, Office of the United States Attorney, Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Calvin R. Rosemond pled guilty to one count of possession
with intent to distribute five grams or more of cocaine base, 21
U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000), and knowingly using and carrying a
firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime, 18
U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) (2000). He received a 254-month sentence.
Rosemond’s attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no
meritorious issues for appeal, but asserting that the district
court failed to meet the requirements of Rule 11 of the Federal
Rules of Criminal Procedure at the plea hearing and failed to
properly calculate Rosemond’s sentence. Rosemond has filed a pro
se supplemental brief. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
Neither claim presented by counsel was preserved in the
district court. Therefore, they are reviewed for plain error.
United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 526-27 (4th Cir.), cert.
denied, 537 U.S. 899 (2002). First, Rosemond contends his Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11 plea hearing was inadequate. In light of the district
court’s thorough plea colloquy, we find Rosemond was fully aware of
his rights and the consequences of his plea and that his plea was
knowing and voluntary. We find the district court complied with
the requirements of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting Rosemond’s
plea.
- 2 -
Next, Rosemond challenges the district court’s
calculation of the guideline range and the specific sentence
imposed. We find that the guideline range was correctly
calculated. Furthermore, because the sentence is within the
properly calculated guideline range and the statutory maximum
penalty for the offenses, this court has no authority to review the
district court’s imposition of this specific sentence. United
States v. Porter, 909 F.2d 789, 794 (4th Cir. 1990).
We have reviewed the entire record in this case in
accordance with the requirements of Anders, and find no meritorious
issues for appeal. We further find Rosemond’s claims in his pro se
supplemental brief without merit. Accordingly we affirm the
judgment of the district court. 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. 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 in the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -