UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4019
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ROBERT GAULDEN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CR-
00-008-CCB)
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Samuel J. Randall, IV, Wilmington, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Thomas M. DiBiagio, United States Attorney, Craig M. Wolff,
Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Robert Franklin Gaulden was convicted of possession with
intent to distribute marijuana, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (2000) and
failure to appear, 18 U.S.C. § 3146 (2000). Gaulden’s counsel has
filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), raising one issue on appeal, but stating that, in his view,
there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Gaulden was informed
of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has failed to
do so.
Gaulden failed to appear for his initial trial date in
2001. At trial after his apprehension, counsel from the
proceedings leading to the 2001 trial date testified it was
inconceivable that he failed to inform Gaulden of the trial date.
Gaulden asserts the district court erred in permitting testimony
that violated the attorney client privilege. There is no attorney
client privilege applicable to the communication of trial dates.
United States v. Gray, 876 F.2d 1411, 1415-16 (9th Cir. 1989);
United States v. Innella, 821 F.2d 1566, 1567 (11th Cir. 1987);
United States v. Bourassa, 411 F.2d 69 (10th Cir. 1969).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm Gaulden’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
- 2 -
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 -