UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4934
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CHAD LEE SHERIDAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (CR-
04-98-1)
Submitted: June 20, 2005 Decided: July 5, 2005
Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Benjamin T. Stepp, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Alan Lance Crick, Assistant United
States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Chad Lee Sheridan appeals his sentence for five counts of
possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation
of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(C) (2000) and one count of
possession of ammunition as a convicted felon, in violation of 18
U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2), 924(e) (2000). The court sentenced
Sheridan to thirty months’ imprisonment. The court also specified
an identical alternative sentence of thirty months pursuant to this
court’s recommendation in United States v. Hammoud, 378 F.3d 426
(4th Cir. 2004), opinion issued by, United States v. Hammoud, 381
F.3d 316 (4th Cir. 2004), cert. granted, judgment vacated, 125 S.
Ct. 1051 (2005). Sheridan’s attorney filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that he has
reviewed the record, researched the issues raised by Sheridan, and
has found them to have no merit. In his Anders brief, Sheridan’s
attorney raised several issues related to the district court’s
calculation of Sheridan’s sentence. Although informed of his right
to do so, Sheridan has not filed a pro se supplemental brief.
Sheridan was also afforded the opportunity to address the impact of
United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), on his case in a
supplemental brief, and he has not done so.
In accordance with the requirements of Anders, we have
reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no
meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm Sheridan’s
- 2 -
sentence. This court requires counsel inform his client, in
writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United
State for further review. If the client requests a petition be
filed, but counsel believes such a 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 -