UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4302
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
BETTY KAY JONES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge.
(CR-01-695)
Submitted: August 22, 2003 Decided: September 10, 2003
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Benjamin T. Stepp, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Kevin Frank McDonald, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Betty Kay Jones pled guilty to conspiracy to possess or utter
counterfeit obligations of the United States, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 371 (2000), 18 U.S.C.A. § 472 (West Supp. 2003). The
district court sentenced her to six months in prison. Jones’
counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that, in his view, there are no
meritorious grounds for appeal. However, he raises the issues of
whether the district court complied with Rule 11 of the Federal
Rules of Criminal Procedure in accepting Jones’ guilty plea, and
whether the district court erred in sentencing Jones to six months
in prison. Although notified of her right to do so, Jones has not
filed a pro se supplemental brief. Finding no reversible error, we
affirm.
After reviewing the transcript of the plea proceeding, we
conclude that the district court fully complied with the
requirements of Rule 11 in accepting Jones’ guilty plea. Turning
to the sentencing issue, we find that we have no authority to
review the district court’s decision to sentence Jones to six
months in prison because this sentence is within the properly
calculated guidelines range and is below the statutory maximum
sentence of five years. See 18 U.S.C. § 371 (setting forth
statutory maximum); United States v. Porter, 909 F.2d 789, 794 (4th
Cir. 1990) (finding challenge to court’s exercise of discretion in
2
setting a sentence within a properly calculated guidelines range
not addressable on appeal).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm Jones’ conviction and sentence. This court
requires that counsel inform his 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 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