UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4812
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MARCO ELDRICO PATTERSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(CR-02-471)
Submitted: April 15, 2004 Decided: April 20, 2004
Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joshua S. Kendrick, DEBRA CHAPMAN, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina,
for Appellant. Arthur B. Parham, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Marco Eldrico Patterson appeals his conviction pursuant
to a guilty plea and ninety-eight month sentence for conspiracy to
distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000).
Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), in which he states there are no meritorious issues
for appeal, but presenting two issues for our review. Although
notified of his right to file a supplemental pro se brief,
Patterson has not done so. Finding no error, we affirm.
First, Patterson argues that his guilty plea was not
valid. Because Patterson did not object in the district court, our
review is for plain error. United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 59
(2002). We have reviewed the district court’s thorough plea
hearing and have found no error.
Patterson also contends that his sentence was
unconstitutional. We have reviewed the record and disagree. In
accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and have
found no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm
Patterson’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
- 2 -
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 -