United States v. Crissman , 96 F. App'x 149 ( 2004 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4416
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CRAIG CRISSMAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(CR-02-336)
Submitted: April 29, 2004 Decided: May 4, 2004
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
M. Gregory McCollum, P.A., Myrtle Beach, South Carolina; Debra
Yvonne Chapman, DEBRA CHAPMAN PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellant. James Strom Thurmond, Jr., United States Attorney,
Columbia, South Carolina; Arthur Bradley Parham, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Craig Crissman pled guilty to armed robbery, 18 U.S.C.
§§ 2113(a), (d), 2 (2000), and using and carrying a firearm during
a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c), 2 (2000).*
Crissman was sentenced to a term of 101 months imprisonment
consisting of forty months for the bank robbery and sixty-one
months for the § 924(c) count. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant
to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising as
potentially meritorious issues the extent of the district court’s
downward departure for substantial assistance and the court’s
decision to impose sentence at the high end of the resulting
guideline range, but asserting that in her view there are no
meritorious issues for appeal. Crissman has been informed of his
right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not filed a
brief. We affirm the conviction and sentence.
We find no merit in the issues raised in the Anders
brief. We lack jurisdiction to review a defendant’s appeal of the
extent of a downward departure unless the departure decision
resulted in a sentence imposed in violation of law or resulted from
an incorrect application of the sentencing guidelines. United
States v. Hill, 70 F.3d 321, 324-25 (4th Cir. 1995). Moreover, the
district court’s decision to impose sentence at a particular point
*
The parties consented to entry of the plea before a
magistrate judge. United States v. Osborne, 345 F.3d 281, 285 (4th
Cir. 2003).
- 2 -
within a correctly calculated guideline range is generally not
reviewable. United States v. Pitts, 176 F.3d 239, 248-49 (4th Cir.
1999).
Pursuant to Anders, this court has reviewed the record
for reversible error and found none. We therefore affirm the
conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform
her 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 move this court for leave to
withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a
copy thereof was served on the client. 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 -