UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4883
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
DON CORNELIUS BURGESS,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(4:07-cr-00481-TLW-9)
Submitted: February 22, 2011 Decided: March 17, 2011
Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jonathan Harvey, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant.
Arthur Bradley Parham, Assistant United States Attorney,
Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Don Cornelius Burgess seeks to appeal the district
court’s amended judgment granting, in part, the Government’s
Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b) motion and reducing his sentence from 175
months to 140 months in prison. Burgess’s counsel has filed a
brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
pointing out that Burgess sought a greater reduction than the
one he received, but concluding that 18 U.S.C.A. § 3742 (West
2000 & Supp. 2010) provides no basis for the appeal. Burgess
was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief,
but has not done so. The Government declined to file a
responsive brief.
We lack the authority to review a district court’s
decision concerning Rule 35(b) motions unless the ultimate
sentence was imposed in violation of the law. United States v.
Hartwell, 448 F.3d 707, 712-14 (4th Cir. 2006); United States v.
Pridgen, 64 F.3d 147, 148-50 (4th Cir. 1995); see 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 3742. We conclude that the sentence Burgess received was not
imposed in violation of the law. Thus, we lack the authority to
review the district court’s amended judgment.
Because Burgess asserts no ground upon which this
court may review the district court's Rule 35 determination, nor
has our independent review of the record, in accordance with
Anders, revealed any such ground, we dismiss Burgess’s appeal.
2
This court requires that counsel inform Burgess, in writing, of
his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Burgess requests that a petition be filed,
but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,
counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Burgess. 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.
DISMISSED
3