UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-7737
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROBERT GENARD BYRD, a/k/a Stank,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(4:05-cr-01042-TLW-2)
Submitted: July 28, 2011 Decided: August 1, 2011
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kathy Price Elmore, ORR ELMORE & ERVIN, LLC, Florence, South
Carolina, for Appellant. Carrie Ann Fisher, Assistant United
States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Robert Genard Byrd seeks to appeal the district
court’s amended judgment granting the Government’s Fed. R. Crim.
P. 35(b) motion and reducing Byrd’s sentence from 192 months to
132 months in prison. * Byrd’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant
to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there
are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether
the district court abused its discretion in not reducing Byrd’s
sentence further. Byrd 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.
§ 3742 (2006). We conclude that the sentence Byrd received was
not imposed in violation of the law. Thus, we lack the
authority to review the district court’s amended judgment.
*
Byrd was originally sentenced to 300 months’ imprisonment.
Pursuant to the amendment to the Guidelines for crack cocaine
offenses, Byrd’s sentence was later reduced to 192 months’
imprisonment.
2
Because Byrd 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 Byrd’s appeal. This court
requires that counsel inform Byrd, in writing, of his right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Byrd 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
Byrd. 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