UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4704
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
WILLIAM ROGER SCIPPIO, JR.,
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-00416-WLO)
Submitted: June 15, 2007 Decided: June 19, 2007
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
M. Bays Schoaf, Salisbury, North Carolina, for Appellant. Randall
Stuart Galyon, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William Roger Scippio, Jr., pled guilty to possessing
fifty grams or more of cocaine hydrochloride with intent to
manufacture cocaine base “crack” in violation of 21 U.S.C.A.
§§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A) (West 2000 & Supp. 2007). He was
sentenced to 240 months of imprisonment.
On appeal, counsel has filed a brief under Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), alleging that there are no
meritorious claims on appeal but raising the following issue:
whether the district court erred by enhancing Scippio’s criminal
history by adding two criminal history points under U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual § 4A1.1(e) (2005) because the instant offense was
committed within two years after his release from incarceration.
For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
We find no error in the district court’s decision to
increase Scippio’s criminal history under USSG § 4A1.1(e). United
States v. McManus, 23 F.3d 878, 882 (4th Cir. 1994) (stating review
standard for calculation of criminal history). The record is
uncontroverted that Scippio was released from prison on September
28, 2003, and committed the instant offense on September 8, 2005.
We have examined the entire record in this case,
including the issue raised in Scippio’s pro se supplemental brief,
in accordance with the requirements of Anders, and find no
meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the
- 2 -
conviction and sentence. This court requires that 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 -