UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4170
JOSEPH IZELL MOSLEY,
Defendant - Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (CR-02-376)
Submitted: August 23, 2004 Decided: September 8, 2004
Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christopher J. Moran, LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTOPHER J. MORAN,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Joseph Izell Mosley appeals his sentences following his
guilty plea without a plea agreement to bank robbery by force or
violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a) and (d) (2000)
(Count One), and knowingly using and carrying a firearm during and
in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c)(1)(A) (2000) (Count Two). Mosley’s attorney has filed a
brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
Although counsel states there are no meritorious issues for appeal,
he challenges Mosley’s forty-six-month sentence on Count One and
the consecutive sixty-month term of imprisonment on Count Two.
Although informed of his right to do so, Mosley did not file a pro
se supplemental brief. The Government declined to file a
responsive brief. In accordance with Anders, we have considered
the brief and examined the entire record for meritorious issues.
Finding no error, we affirm.
It is well-settled that a sentence within a properly
calculated sentencing guidelines range is not reviewable on appeal.
United States v. Jones, 18 F.3d 1145, 1151 (4th Cir. 1994) (holding
§ 3742(a) precludes a criminal defendant from seeking review of
court’s sentence anywhere within properly calculated sentencing
range); 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) (2000). Because Mosley’s forty-six-
month sentence on Count One falls within the properly calculated
guidelines range of forty-six to fifty-seven months’ imprisonment,
- 2 -
and because his sixty-month consecutive sentence on Count Two is
mandated by statute, neither is reviewable on appeal.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case, including the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 and
sentencing transcripts, and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm Mosley’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, counsel
may move in this court to withdraw from representation at that
time. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served
on Mosley.
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 -