UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4549
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SAMUEL BEVERLY BOULWARE,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (3:08-cr-00046-JFA-1)
Submitted: February 18, 2010 Decided: February 23, 2010
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John H. Hare, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellant. Jane Barrett Taylor, Assistant United
States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Following his guilty plea, Samuel Beverly Boulware was
convicted of possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine.
Based on his prior felony drug convictions, he faced a statutory
minimum sentence of ten years. However, the district court
granted the Government’s motion pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e)
(2006) for a departure below the statutory minimum based upon
Boulware’s substantial assistance, and sentenced Boulware to 84
months in prison. On appeal, Boulware’s attorney filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
addressing the validity of the guilty plea and the district
court’s denial of Boulware’s request for a variance sentence,
but stating that there was no merit to the appeal. Although
advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief,
Boulware has not filed a brief. Our review of the record
discloses no reversible error; accordingly, we affirm Boulware’s
conviction and sentence.
We find that Boulware’s guilty plea was knowingly and
voluntarily entered after a thorough hearing pursuant to Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11. Boulware was properly advised of his rights, the
offense charged, and the mandatory minimum sentence he faced.
The court also determined that there was an independent factual
basis for the plea and that the plea was not coerced or
2
influenced by any promises. See United States v. DeFusco, 949
F.2d 114, 119-20 (4th Cir. 1991). We therefore affirm
Boulware’s conviction.
Next, we find that the district court properly denied
Boulware’s request for a variance sentence below the Guidelines
range established after granting the Government’s motion for a
downward departure. See United States v. Hood, 556 F.3d 226,
234 n.2 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 321 (2009); United
States v. A.B., 529 F.3d 1275, 1285 (10th Cir.), cert. denied,
129 S. Ct. 440 (2008) (holding that district court did not have
authority to depart any further below the statutory minimum
after granting the § 3553(e) motion, and therefore need not
consider the § 3553(a) factors); United States v. Williams, 474
F.3d 1130, 1131 (8th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, we affirm
Boulware’s sentence.
As required by Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm Boulware’s 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 for leave to withdraw from
3
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
4