UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4598
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CARLOS GARCIA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (CR-02-1109)
Submitted: February 19, 2004 Decided: March 5, 2004
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David W. Plowden, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Maxwell Barnes Cauthen, III, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Carlos Garcia appeals his conviction for illegal reentry
into the United States without permission of the United States
Attorney General, after having previously been deported subsequent
to a conviction for an aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C.
§ 1326(a), (b)(2) (2000). Garcia’s attorney has filed a brief in
accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising
one issue but stating that he finds no meritorious grounds for
appeal. Although notified of his right to do so, Garcia has not
filed a pro se supplemental brief. Finding no reversible error, we
affirm.
In the Anders brief, counsel questions whether the
district court erred in denying Garcia’s request for a downward
departure. A defendant may obtain review of a district court’s
decision not to depart downward only when the district court
mistakenly believed it lacked authority to depart. United States
v. Edwards, 188 F.3d 230, 238-39 (4th Cir. 1999). Garcia does not
argue that the court failed to understand its authority to depart,
nor does the record disclose any uncertainty on the court’s part.
Accordingly, Garcia’s claim is not reviewable on appeal. Edwards,
188 F.3d at 238-39.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm Garcia’s conviction and sentence.
- 2 -
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 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 -