UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4709
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
VERDELL EVANS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Margaret B. Seymour, District
Judge. (CR-02-612)
Submitted: April 29, 2004 Decided: May 3, 2004
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David B. Betts, LAW OFFICES OF DAVID B. BETTS, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellant. James Strom Thurmond, Jr., United States
Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina; Isaac Louis Johnson, Jr.,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Verdell Evans appeals his conviction by a jury of
possession with intent to distribute more than five grams of crack
cocaine and the district court’s imposition of a 360-month term of
imprisonment. Counsel has filed a brief in accordance with
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising two issues but
stating that, in his view, there are no meritorious grounds for
appeal. Evans has filed a pro se supplemental brief. We affirm.
Counsel first questions whether the evidence at trial was
sufficient to support the jury’s verdict. “The verdict of a jury
must be sustained if there is substantial evidence, taking the view
most favorable to the Government, to support it.” Glasser v.
United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942); see United States v.
Newsome, 322 F.3d 328, 333 (4th Cir. 2003) (defining “substantial
evidence”). Our review of the record leads us to conclude that no
plain error resulted from the jury’s verdict of guilty. See
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-32 (1993) (discussing
standard of review); United States v. Russell, 221 F.3d 615, 618
(4th Cir. 2000) (discussing elements of offense); United States v.
Lamarr, 75 F.3d 964, 973 (4th Cir. 1996) (finding that possession
of 5.72 grams of crack, combined with other circumstantial
evidence, was sufficient to support jury’s inference of intent to
distribute).
- 2 -
Counsel also questions the district court’s refusal to
grant Evans’ motion for a downward departure. Where, as here, the
district court was aware of its authority to depart and declined to
do so, the court’s refusal to depart is not reviewable on appeal.
United States v. Edwards, 188 F.3d 230, 238-39 (4th Cir. 1999).
Finally, Evans challenges in his pro se supplemental
brief the district court’s classification of him as a career
offender. We have reviewed Evans’ claims and find no plain error.
See Olano, 507 U.S. at 731-32.
As required by Anders, we have examined the entire record
and find no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm
Evans’ 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 -