UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-4415
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
SHANNON BANARD PHARR,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II,
Chief District Judge. (CR-01-35)
Submitted: April 23, 2002 Decided: May 2, 2002
Before MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Carl J. Roncaglione, Jr., Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant.
Kasey Warner, United States Attorney, John J. Frail, Assistant
United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Shannon Banard Pharr pled guilty to possession with intent to
distribute in excess of five grams of cocaine base and was
sentenced to sixty months imprisonment. On appeal, counsel has
filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
alleging that there are no meritorious claims on appeal but raising
the issue of whether Pharr’s criminal history was properly
calculated under the Sentencing Guidelines.
We have reviewed counsel’s arguments on appeal and do not find
that the district court erred in determining Pharr’s criminal
history. United States v. Daughtrey, 874 F.2d 213, 217 (4th Cir.
1989) (stating review standard).
We have examined the entire record in this case in accordance
with the requirements of Anders, and find no meritorious issues for
appeal. Accordingly, we 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
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
2
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3