UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 97-4509
RON SOWELL, a/k/a Mike,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Richard L. Voorhees, Chief District Judge.
(CR-96-71-V)
Submitted: June 30, 1998
Decided: July 31, 1998
Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Jesse J. Waldon, Jr., Matthews, North Carolina, for Appellant. Mark
T. Calloway, United States Attorney, Frank D. Whitney, Assistant
United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Ron Sowell pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with the intent
to distribute and to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846
(1994); and possession with the intent to distribute cocaine, in viola-
tion of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (1994). The district court sentenced
Sowell to 131 months' imprisonment with five years of supervised
release for each count to run concurrently, and a $100 assessment.
Sowell appeals his sentence. Sowell's attorney has filed a brief in
accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting
that the district court denied Sowell due process and a fair sentence
by considering only the recommendation of the Government and not
the full range of factors dictated by U.S. Sentencing Guidelines
Manual § 5K1.1 (1997).
Sowell became involved in a conspiracy to possess and distribute
cocaine in 1986. In February 1996, Sowell was arrested and later
indicted. Immediately following his arrest, Sowell began cooperating
with the Government. At sentencing, the Government moved for a
downward departure, which the district court granted. The district
court departed from a calculated sentencing range of 262 to 327
months to 131 months.
A defendant may not appeal the extent of a downward departure
when the resulting sentence is within the statutory limits and below
the properly calculated sentencing guidelines range. See United States
v. Hill, 70 F.3d 321, 323-24 (4th Cir. 1990). Moreover, when the sen-
tencing court has departed in the defendant's favor, 18 U.S.C. § 3742
(1994) does not provide for an appeal from the sentence. Only the
government may appeal a downward departure. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3742(b). Therefore, we affirm Sowell's sentence.
In accordance with the requirement of Anders, we have examined
the entire record in this case and find no meritorious issues for appeal.
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
2
move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Coun-
sel's motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3