UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4604
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
UNA DANIELLE PORTER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees,
District Judge. (CR-01-87)
Submitted: September 24, 2004 Decided: October 19, 2004
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Danielle B. Obiorah, MASON-WATSON, OBIORAH & SINGLETARY, P.C.,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Robert James Conrad,
Jr., United States Attorney, Robert John Gleason, Assistant United
States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Una Danielle Porter pled guilty to conspiracy to commit
armed bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 371 (2000) (Count One); armed bank
robbery and aiding and abetting, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113, 2 (2000) (Count
Two); using or carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime
of violence, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2000) (Count Three); and two
carjackings, 18 U.S.C. § 2119 (2000) (Counts Four and Five).
Porter was sentenced to fifty-one months imprisonment and a
consecutive eighty-four-month sentence for the § 924(c) offense.
Porter’s attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising as a potentially
meritorious issue the district court’s refusal to depart downward
based on Porter’s assertion that she participated in the offenses
in an attempt to avoid a greater harm, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines
Manual § 5K2.11, p.s. (2002), and coercion and duress, USSG
§ 2K2.12, p.s., but asserting that in her view there are no
meritorious issues for appeal. Porter has been informed of her
right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not filed a
brief. We affirm the conviction and sentence.
We find that the issue presented in the Anders brief is
without merit. United States v. Shaw, 313 F.3d 219, 222 (4th Cir.
2002) (appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review district
court’s refusal to depart unless the decision was based on a
mistaken belief that the court lacked legal authority to depart).
- 2 -
Pursuant to Anders, we have reviewed the record for reversible
error and found none. We therefore affirm the conviction and
sentence. We deny counsel’s motion to withdraw at this time. This
court requires that counsel inform her client, in writing, of her
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 -