UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4741
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
THOMAS LEE DOWNS, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Margaret B. Seymour, District
Judge. (CR-02-341)
Submitted: March 17, 2004 Decided: April 7, 2004
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Benjamin T. Stepp, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Regan Alexandra Pendleton,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Thomas Lee Downs, Jr., pled guilty pursuant to a written
plea agreement to three counts of distribution and possession with
intent to distribute cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841
(2000).* The district court sentenced him to 262 months’
imprisonment followed by five years of supervised release. On
appeal, Downs’s attorney filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no
meritorious issues presented in the appeal, but raising the claims
that the district court failed to comply with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11
in accepting Downs’s guilty plea, failed to lawfully sentence
Downs, and improperly denied Downs’s motion for a downward
departure. Downs has also filed a pro se supplemental brief.
As to the claims raised by counsel, we find the district
court fully complied with the requirements of Rule 11. We further
find that the district court properly adopted the unopposed
presentence report and correctly sentenced Downs within the proper
sentencing guidelines range. Finally, we find that the district
court was aware of its authority to depart from the sentencing
guidelines range and elected not to do so in its discretion. We
also find without merit the claims raised by Downs in his pro se
supplemental brief.
*
Downs’s plea agreement did not contain a waiver of appellate
rights.
- 2 -
We have examined the entire record in this case in
accordance with the requirements of Anders and find no meritorious
issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm Downs’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 -