UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4460
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JACQUELINE LYNNE BRIDGES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Senior
District Judge. (1:05-cr-00244-WLO)
Submitted: November 15, 2006 Decided: November 20, 2006
Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas N. Cochran, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States
Attorney, Sandra Jane Hairston, Assistant United States Attorney,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Jacqueline Lynne Bridges appeals from the 160-month
sentence imposed following her guilty plea to conspiracy to
distribute more than fifty grams of crack cocaine. Bridges’
counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738, 744 (1967), stating that there were no meritorious issues for
appeal, but addressing the validity of Bridges’ sentence. Bridges
filed two documents in this court, raising additional issues and
expressing her disagreement with some drug amounts attributed to
her. Because our review of the record discloses no reversible
error, we affirm.
We find that Bridges’ guilty plea was knowingly and
voluntarily entered after a thorough hearing pursuant to Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11. Bridges was properly advised of her rights, the
offense charged, and the minimum and maximum sentences for the
offense. The court also determined that there was an independent
factual basis for the plea and that the plea was not coerced or
influenced by any promises. See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S.
25, 31 (1970); United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 119-20 (4th
Cir. 1991).
We find that the district court properly applied the
Sentencing Guidelines and considered the relevant sentencing
factors before imposing the 160-month sentence. 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2006); see United States v. Hughes,
- 2 -
401 F.3d 540, 546-47 (4th Cir. 2005). Additionally, we find that
the sentence imposed was reasonable. See United States v. Green,
436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir. 2006) (“[A] sentence imposed within the
properly calculated [g]uidelines range . . . is presumptively
reasonable.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted),
cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2309 (2006). Accordingly, we affirm
Bridges’ sentence.
As required by Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record, including the documents filed by Bridges, and have found no
meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Bridges’
conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform
his client, in writing, of her right to petition the Supreme Court
of the United States for further review. Accordingly, we deny
counsel’s motion to withdraw from representation. If Bridges
requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such
a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move again 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 -