UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4814
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
STEVE BROADUS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Margaret B. Seymour, District
Judge. (CR-01-887)
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
J. Bradley Bennett, SALVINI & BENNETT, L.L.C., Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellant. Elizabeth Jean Howard, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Steve Broadus pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with
intent to distribute fifty grams or more of cocaine base and more
than five kilograms of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846
(2000). At sentencing, the court granted the Government’s motion
for a downward departure based on Broadus’ substantial assistance
and imposed an 80-month sentence. Broadus was subsequently
resentenced after filing a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion based on
ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing. At resentencing,
the Government again moved for a downward departure based on
Broadus’ substantial assistance. The district court granted the
motion and reduced Broadus’ offense level by four levels. Broadus
received a 57-month sentence. Broadus’ attorney has filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising the
issue of whether the district court erred by not departing further,
but asserting that, in his view, there are no meritorious issues
for appeal. Although informed of his right to file a pro se
supplemental brief, Broadus has not done so. We affirm.
Broadus argues that the district court committed
reversible error when it represented to him at the conclusion of
the evidentiary hearing on his § 2255 motion that it would grant
the Government’s motion for a downward departure and reduce his
base offense level by five levels if he agreed to withdraw his
§ 2255 motion. This assertion is belied by the record. Nothing in
- 2 -
the record reflects that the district court made any promises
regarding the extent of its downward departure. Broadus further
argues that the four-level reduction at resentencing was
inconsistent with the five-level reduction the court applied at the
initial sentencing. This assertion too is belied by the record as
it clearly reflects that the court reduced Broadus’ offense level
by only four levels at the initial sentencing. In any event, a
defendant may not appeal the extent of a downward departure unless
the departure decision resulted in a sentence imposed in violation
of law or resulted in an incorrect application of the sentencing
guidelines. United States v. Hill, 70 F.3d 321, 324-25 (4th Cir.
1995). We discern no such error in the district court’s departure
in this case.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm Broadus’ 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 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
- 3 -
materials before the court and argument would not aid in the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 4 -