UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4951
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
WISTER PATRICK GATES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (CR-03-616)
Submitted: September 30, 2005 Decided: November 8, 2005
Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Margaret A. Chamberlain, CHAMBERLAIN LAW FIRM, Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellant. James Strom Thurmond, Jr., United States
Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, Isaac L. Johnson, Jr.,
Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Wister Patrick Gates pled guilty to conspiracy to
distribute and to possess with intent to distribute fifty grams or
more of cocaine base and cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000);
possession with intent to distribute fifty grams or more of cocaine
base and cocaine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A),
(b)(1)(C)(2000); using and carrying firearms in relation to a drug
trafficking crime, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1); and possession of a
firearm by a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g), 924(a)(2)
(2000). He was sentenced to 276 months of imprisonment. Gates’
attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), raising the issue of whether the district court
imposed a reasonable sentence, but asserting that, in her view,
there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Gates has filed a pro
se supplemental brief.
On appeal, Gates argues that he should have received a
shorter sentence. Our review of the record convinces us that the
district court correctly determined the applicable sentencing range
under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. To the extent Gates
asserts error in the district court’s decision to sentence him to
a particular term of imprisonment within the properly calculated
Guidelines range, such an exercise of discretion by the district
court is not reviewable. United States v. Porter, 909 F.2d 789,
794 (4th Cir. 1990). Furthermore, it is well established that this
- 2 -
court does not review the extent of a downward departure unless the
departure resulted in an illegal sentence or resulted from an
incorrect application of the Guidelines. United States v. Hill, 70
F.3d 321, 324 (4th Cir. 1995).
Pursuant to Anders, we have reviewed the record for
reversible error and found none. We further find no merit to the
arguments raised in Gates’ pro se supplemental brief. We therefore
affirm his convictions and sentence. This court requires that
counsel inform her 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 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 -