UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4003
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
SEAN GREGORY MITCHELL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith,
District Judge. (CR-03-97)
Submitted: May 19, 2005 Decided: May 24, 2005
Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bryan L. Saunders, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellant. Dennis
Joseph Guthinger, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Sean Gregory Mitchell appeals his convictions and 141-
month sentence for two counts of distribution of cocaine base, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (2000), and two counts of use of a
cellular phone in the distribution of cocaine, in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 843 (2000). Mitchell’s attorney has filed a brief in
accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
asserting that Mitchell’s sentence is excessive, but stating that
he finds no meritorious grounds for appeal. Although Mitchell was
informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, he did
not do so. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
In the Anders brief, counsel raises the potential issue
of whether the district court imposed an excessive sentence.
However, Mitchell’s offense level was not increased based on any
fact he did not admit in his guilty plea. Accordingly, because the
sentence is not plainly erroneous in light of United States v.
Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), and there is no indication that
Mitchell’s sentence is unreasonable, the sentencing challenge
lacks merit. See United States v. White, __ F.3d __, 2005 WL
949326 (4th Cir. Apr. 26, 2005)
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We, therefore, affirm Mitchell’s conviction and sentence.
This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of
- 2 -
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 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 -