UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4649
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TONY DERELL HAWK,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (1:08-cr-00413-JAB-1)
Submitted: December 21, 2010 Decided: January 3, 2011
Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Amy Lee Copeland, AMY LEE COPELAND, LLC, Savannah, Georgia, for
Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Sandra Jane Hairston, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tony Derrell Hawk pleaded guilty to one count of
possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21
U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B) (2006), and one count of
possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i) (2006). Granting
the motion of the United States for a downward departure, the
district court sentenced Hawk to consecutive fifty month
sentences, ten months below the mandatory five-year minimum
applicable to both counts. Hawk now appeals his 100-month
active sentence. His attorney has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there
are no meritorious issues for appeal but asking the court to
review the extent of the sentencing departure. Hawk was
informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but
did not do so. For the reasons that follow, we affirm Hawk’s
sentence.
Appellate courts “lack jurisdiction to review the
extent of the district court’s downward departure.” United
States v. Hill, 70 F.3d 321, 324 (4th Cir. 1994) (emphasis in
original). Accordingly, the ground raised for appeal by counsel
on appeal lacks merit. We have examined the entire record in
accordance with the requirements of Anders and have found no
2
meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Hawk’s
conviction.
This court requires that counsel inform Hawk, in
writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Hawk 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 Hawk. 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