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UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,  Plaintiff-Appellee, v.  No. 02-4616 ANTHONY BRYANT, Defendant-Appellant.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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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F. Joseph, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. 2 UNITED STATES v. BRYANT Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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