UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4566
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
TONY LAVERN EDWARDS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District
Judge. (CR-02-374)
Submitted: January 30, 2004 Decided: February 13, 2004
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, William S. Trivette,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Michael
Francis Joseph, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Tony Lavern Edwards appeals his convictions and sentence
following his guilty plea to violations of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (2000),
18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000), and 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2) (2000).
Edwards’s attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Although counsel states there are
no meritorious issues for appeal, he argues the district court
abused its discretion by sentencing Edwards to an excessive
sentence of 130 months’ imprisonment. Although informed of his
right to do so, Edwards did not file a pro se supplemental brief.
Counsel also filed a motion for leave to withdraw from
representation, and Edwards filed a motion for substitution of
counsel. In accordance with Anders, we have considered the brief
and examined the entire record for meritorious issues. Finding no
error, we affirm.
It is well-settled that a sentence within the properly
calculated sentencing guidelines range is not appealable. United
States v. Jones, 18 F.3d 1145, 1151 (4th Cir. 1994) (holding
§ 3742(a) precludes a criminal defendant from seeking review of
court’s sentence anywhere within properly calculated sentencing
range); 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) (2000). Because Edwards’s 130-month
sentence falls within the properly calculated guidelines range of
120 to 150 months’ imprisonment, it is not reviewable on appeal.
- 2 -
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case, including the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 and
sentencing transcripts, and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm Edwards’s convictions and sentence.
We deny the motions to withdraw and for substitution of counsel at
this time. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in
writing, of his 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 to withdraw from
representation at that time. Counsel’s motion must state that a
copy thereof was served on Edwards.
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 -