United States v. Lester , 30 F. App'x 300 ( 2002 )


Menu:
  •                          UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,              
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.                             No. 01-4582
    SHAWN LESTER,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston.
    John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge.
    (CR-01-33)
    Submitted: February 28, 2002
    Decided: March 20, 2002
    Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    COUNSEL
    Carl J. Roncaglione, Jr., Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant.
    Charles T. Miller, United States Attorney, Samuel D. Marsh, Assis-
    tant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
    Local Rule 36(c).
    2                       UNITED STATES v. LESTER
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    Shawn Lester pled guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement to
    one count of aiding and abetting the possession with intent to distrib-
    ute heroin, in violation of 
    21 U.S.C.A. § 841
    (a)(1) (West 1999 &
    Supp. 2001); 
    18 U.S.C. § 2
     (1994). His attorney has filed a brief in
    accordance with Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967). Counsel
    states that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal. Although
    informed of his right to file a supplemental pro se brief, Lester has
    not done so.
    Lester was sentenced to eighteen months imprisonment and three
    years of supervised release. Because Lester’s sentence was below the
    properly calculated sentencing guidelines’ maximum range and less
    than the statutory maximum sentence, it is not reviewable. United
    States v. Porter, 
    909 F.2d 789
    , 794 (4th Cir. 1990). In accordance
    with the requirements of Anders, we have examined the entire record
    in this case, and we find no meritorious issues for appeal.
    For these reasons, we affirm Lester’s 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 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 ade-
    quately presented in the materials before the court and argument
    would not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 01-4582

Citation Numbers: 30 F. App'x 300

Judges: King, Michael, Niemeyer, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 3/20/2002

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/6/2023