UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4142
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
WALTEZ JEMEL LATHAM,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. J. Michelle Childs, District
Judge. (8:13-cr-00266-JMC-1)
Submitted: August 20, 2014 Decided: September 3, 2014
Before NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David W. Plowden, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Elizabeth Jean Howard, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Waltez Jemel Latham appeals his conviction and
twelve-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to
escape from a correctional institution, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 751(a) (2012). On appeal, counsel has filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting
there are no meritorious issues for review but questioning
whether the district court committed procedural sentencing error
by declining to apply a seven-level downward adjustment to
Latham’s base offense level pursuant to U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual (“U.S.S.G.”) § 2P1.1(b)(2) (2013). The
Government has declined to file a response brief. Latham was
notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but
has not done so. We affirm.
“In assessing a challenge to a sentencing court’s
application of the Guidelines, we review the court’s factual
findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo.”
United States v. Alvarado Perez, 609 F.3d 609, 612 (4th Cir.
2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). We will find a
court’s factual finding clearly erroneous “only if we are left
with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
committed.” United States v. Crawford, 734 F.3d 339, 342 (4th
Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, 134
S. Ct. 1528 (2014).
2
The Guidelines permit courts to apply a seven-level
downward reduction to the base offense level if the defendant
“escaped from non-secure custody and returned voluntarily within
ninety-six hours.” U.S.S.G. § 2P1.1(b)(2). The Guidelines
define “non-secure custody” to mean “custody with no significant
physical restraint.” U.S.S.G. § 2P1.1 cmt. n.1. Examples
include, but are not limited to, leaving “a work detail outside
the security perimeter of an institution,” failing to return
from a furlough or pass, and “escap[ing] from an institution
with no physical perimeter barrier.” Id. Our review of the
record reveals no clear error in the district court’s finding
that the facility from which Latham escaped was not “non-secure
custody,” and no error in the court’s decision not to apply the
desired reduction on this basis.
In accordance with Anders, 386 U.S. 738, we have
reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious
issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Latham’s conviction and
sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Latham, in
writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Latham 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 Latham.
3
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
4