UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4765
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JORGE GONZALEZ-JAIMES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees,
District Judge. (CR-03-4)
Submitted: March 25, 2004 Decided: March 30, 2004
Before TRAXLER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James S. Weidner, Jr., LAW OFFICE OF JAMES S. WEIDNER, JR.,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C. F. Shappert,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Jorge Gonzalez-Jaimes pled guilty to conspiracy to
possess with intent to distribute five or more kilograms of cocaine
and fifty grams of cocaine base, 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000) (Count 1),
two counts of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, 21
U.S.C.A. § 841 (West 1999 & Supp. 2003) (Counts 3 & 10), and one
count of aiding and abetting the possession of cocaine with intent
to distribute, 21 U.S.C.A. § 841, 18 U.S.C. § 2 (2000) (Count 8).
The district court departed downward based on Gonzalez-Jaimes’
substantial assistance and imposed a sentence of 240 months
imprisonment. Gonzalez-Jaimes’ attorney has filed a brief pursuant
to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising as a
potentially meritorious issue the district court’s failure to
impose a sentence of less than 240 months, but asserting that, in
his view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Gonzalez-
Jaimes 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.
A defendant may not appeal the extent of a downward
departure unless the departure decision resulted in a sentence
imposed in violation of law or resulted in an incorrect application
of the sentencing guidelines. United States v. Hill, 70 F.3d 321,
324-25 (4th Cir. 1995). We discern no such error in the district
court's departure in this case.
- 2 -
Pursuant to Anders, we have reviewed the record for
reversible error and found none. We therefore affirm the
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 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 -