UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4837
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
FREDERICK CARR,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (6:05-CR-01163-HMH)
Submitted: December 21, 2006 Decided: December 29, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William H. Ehlies, II, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant.
Reginald I. Lloyd, United States Attorney, Columbia, South
Carolina, Isaac Louis Johnson, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Frederick Carr appeals his 72-month sentence after
pleading guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent
to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21
U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846 (2000), and two counts of distribution of
cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (2000). Carr’s
attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), acknowledging there are no meritorious issues
on appeal but noting that Carr challenges the validity of his plea
and sentence. Although informed of his right to file a
supplemental pro se brief, Carr has not done so. Finding no
reversible error, we affirm.
Because Carr did not move in the district court to
withdraw his guilty plea, any error in the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11
hearing is reviewed for plain error. United States v. Martinez,
277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). We have carefully reviewed the
transcript of the Rule 11 hearing and conclude that the district
court did not err in accepting Carr’s guilty plea.
At sentencing, the district court considered the properly
calculated advisory sentencing guideline range and the factors set
forth in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2006). The
sentence imposed is within the guideline range and well below the
statutory maximum set forth in § 841. We find that there was no
error by the district court at the sentencing hearing and that
- 2 -
Carr’s sentence is reasonable. See United States v. Green, 436
F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2309 (2006).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm Carr’s conviction and sentence. This court
requires counsel inform his 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 -