United States v. Bryant

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.  No. 02-4616
ANTHONY BRYANT,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham.
N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief District Judge.
(CR-01-431)

Submitted: March 20, 2003

Decided: March 27, 2003

Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and
HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSEL

William L. Osteen, Jr., ADAMS & OSTEEN, Greensboro, North Car-
olina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney,
Michael F. Joseph, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
2 UNITED STATES v. BRYANT
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Bryant pled guilty to attempting to possess with intent to
distribute three kilograms of cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a), (b)(1)(B)
(2000), and was sentenced as a career offender to a term of 105
months imprisonment. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4B1.1
(2001). Bryant’s attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. Cali-
fornia, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), addressing whether the district court cor-
rectly calculated the sentencing guideline range and the extent of its
downward departure, but asserting that in his view there are no meri-
torious issues for appeal. Bryant has been informed of his right to file
a pro se supplemental brief, but has not filed a brief. We affirm the
conviction and sentence.

Bryant and two co-defendants were arrested as they attempted to
buy three kilograms of cocaine from an undercover officer. Bryant
was carrying two concealed firearms. Because he had three prior fel-
ony drug convictions, Bryant was classified as a career offender. At
the sentencing hearing, the government moved for a downward depar-
ture under USSG § 5K1.1, p.s., because of Bryant’s substantial assis-
tance. The court departed below the guideline range of 188-235
months and imposed a sentence of 105 months.

We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court
correctly determined that Bryant was a career offender and properly
calculated his guideline range. The extent of the departure in Bryant’s
favor is not appealable. United States v. Hill, 70 F.3d 321, 323-24
(4th Cir. 1995).

Pursuant to Anders, we have reviewed the record for reversible
error and found none. We therefore affirm the conviction and sen-
tence. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of
his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
 UNITED STATES v. BRYANT 3
review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel
believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may
move 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 argu-
ment would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED