UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-4099
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
SARAH ARLENE WHITLOCK,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge.
(CR-01-705)
Submitted: June 11, 2002 Decided: July 3, 2002
Before LUTTIG, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Leesa Washington, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. David Calhoun Stephens, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Sarah Arlene Whitlock pled guilty to one count of stealing
from an authorized depository for mail on the premises of a United
States Post Office, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1708 (1994).
Whitlock was sentenced to fifteen months’ imprisonment. The
district court ordered the sentence to run consecutively with an
undischarged state sentence. Whitlock’s attorney filed a brief in
accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating
there are no meritorious issues for appeal but raising as a
potential issue the district court’s failure to impose a term of
imprisonment to run concurrently to the state sentence. Whitlock
was informed of her right to file a pro se supplemental brief but
has not done so.
We find the district court did not err by imposing a sentence
to run consecutive to the state sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a)
(1994); United States v. Rogers, 897 F.2d 134, 137 (4th Cir. 1990).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record
and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore
affirm Whitlock’s conviction and sentence. We require that counsel
inform her client, in writing, of her 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
petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court
for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must
2
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 the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3