UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4008
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KENNETH DUNCAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District
Judge. (2:06-cr-01208-PMD-4)
Submitted: November 12, 2008 Decided: November 26, 2008
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Russell W. Mace, III, THE MACE FIRM, Myrtle Beach, South
Carolina, for Appellant. Alston Calhoun Badger, Jr., Assistant
United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kenneth Lee Duncan appeals his conviction and
sentence. Duncan pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to
manufacture, possess with intent to distribute, and distribution
of a mixture or substance containing fifty grams or more of
methamphetamine. Duncan’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there
are no meritorious issues for appeal but raising several issues
regarding Duncan’s sentence. Duncan has filed a pro se
supplemental brief. The Government has declined to file a
brief. Finding no meritorious issues, we affirm.
Counsel asserts on Duncan’s behalf that the district
court erred in finding Duncan culpable for over 500 grams of
methamphetamine, in applying a two level enhancement for
possession of a weapon, and in declining to grant Duncan a
reduction for acceptance of responsibility. We have thoroughly
reviewed the record and find no error in Duncan’s sentence. See
United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 456 (4th Cir.), cert.
denied, 547 U.S. 1156 (2006). In addition, we have considered
the issues raised by Duncan in his pro se supplemental brief and
find the arguments to be without merit.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm Duncan’s conviction and sentence. This
2
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. Finally, 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