UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-4223
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
REGINA COLEMAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CR-
01-363)
Submitted: February 10, 2003 Decided: February 20, 2003
Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marcia G. Shein, LAW OFFICE OF MARCIA G. SHEIN, P.C., Decatur,
Georgia, for Appellant. Marshall Prince, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Regina Coleman appeals her convictions and sentence pursuant
to violations of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000) and 18 U.S.C.
§§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a) (2000). Coleman’s counsel has filed a brief
in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
Although counsel states that there are no meritorious issues for
appeal, she argues that the district court improperly used the
minimum statutory sentence as the guideline sentence when
determining a downward departure. Coleman did not file a pro se
supplemental brief or move for an extension of time within the
thirty day filing period. We deny Coleman’s motion for a thirty day
extension to file the supplemental brief. The United States has
not filed a brief. In accordance with Anders, we have considered
counsel’s brief and have examined the entire record for meritorious
issues. We find no error and affirm.
On appeal, Coleman’s counsel argues the district court
improperly used the statutory minimum term of imprisonment from
which to depart downward. We find this issue is without merit.
United States v. Pillow, 191 F.3d 403, 407-08 (4th Cir. 1999).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm Coleman’s convictions and sentence. Because this
court requires that counsel inform her client, in writing, of her
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
2
further review we deny counsel’s motion to withdraw. 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 the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3