UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7915
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
TERANCE GOODMAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District
Judge. (CR-01-140)
Submitted: June 10, 2004 Decided: June 16, 2004
Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Matthew W. Greene, SMITH & GREENE, PLLC, Fairfax, Virginia, for
Appellant. Laura Marie Everhart, Assistant United States Attorney,
Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Terance Goodman pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute
and to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base,
in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000), and was sentenced in
January 2002 to a term of 360 months of imprisonment. In November
2003, after the government filed a Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b) motion,
Goodman’s sentence was reduced to 200 months. Goodman’s attorney
has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), raising one potential issue, but asserting that in his view
there are no meritorious grounds for appeal. Goodman was advised
of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but did not do
so. We affirm.
Counsel questions whether the district court erred in
failing to appoint counsel to represent Goodman during the pendency
of the Government’s Rule 35 motion. We conclude that the district
court did not err as Goodman was not entitled to counsel in
conjunction with the district court’s decision on the Rule 35
motion. See United States v. Palomo, 80 F.3d 138, 142 (5th Cir.
1996); United States v. Boyce, 352 F.2d 786, 787-88 (4th Cir.
1965). With regard to any challenge to the degree of the district
court’s reduction in Goodman’s sentence, we do not have
jurisdiction to review the extent of the district court’s downward
departure unless such a departure results in a sentence that
violates the law or is an incorrect application of the guidelines,
- 2 -
neither of which applies in this case. United States v. Hill, 70
F.3d 321, 324 (4th Cir. 1995).
We have reviewed the record in accordance with Anders and
find no meritorious issues. Accordingly, we deny counsel’s motion
to withdraw, and affirm Goodman’s 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 -