UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-4691
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
WILLIAM HENRY JOHNSON, a/k/a Skip,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers,
District Judge. (CR-02-69)
Submitted: February 6, 2004 Decided: February 27, 2004
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mark F. Underwood, Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellant. Kasey
Warner, United States Attorney, Miller A. Bushong III, Assistant
United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
William Henry Johnson appeals from the 84-month sentence
imposed after he pled guilty to distribution of crack cocaine, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000). Counsel has filed a
brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
raising two issues but stating that, in his view, there are no
meritorious grounds for appeal. Johnson was informed of his right
to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. We
affirm.
Counsel first questions whether the district court erred
in calculating the amount of drugs attributable to Johnson. At
sentencing, Johnson withdrew his objections to the drug quantity
calculation in the presentence report. We therefore review only
for plain error. See United States v. Osborne, 345 F.3d 281, 284
(4th Cir. 2003) (discussing standard of review). Because Johnson
admitted that he was accountable for more than five but less than
twenty grams of crack, without determining a specific amount within
that range, we find no plain error in the district court’s
determination of the amount of drugs attributable to Johnson.
Counsel next questions whether the district court erred
in refusing to reduce Johnson’s base offense level based upon his
minor role in the offense pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines
Manual § 3B1.2 (2001). A district court may grant a two-level
adjustment to a defendant “who is less culpable than most other
- 2 -
participants, but whose role could not be described as minimal.”
USSG § 3B1.2, comment. (n.5). Our review of the record convinces
us that the district court did not clearly err in denying Johnson’s
request for a downward adjustment for his role in the offense. See
United States v. Lipford, 203 F.3d 259, 272 (4th Cir. 2000)
(stating standard of review); USSG § 3B1.2, comment. (nn.3(A),
3(B)) (discussing role in the offense adjustment).
As required by Anders, we have examined the entire record
and find no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm
Johnson’s conviction and sentence. 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 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 -