United States v. Gooding , 55 F. App'x 181 ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-4381
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JACQUELINE DIANE GOODING,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior
District Judge. (CR-00-234-3)
Submitted: January 8, 2003 Decided: January 30, 2003
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Craig W. Sampson, LAW OFFICE OF CRAIG W. SAMPSON, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellant. Sara Elizabeth Flannery, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Jacqueline Diane Gooding pled guilty to conspiracy to launder
money, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) (2000). Gooding filed
a motion to correct sentence, and the district court denied the
motion. Counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing the district court based
Gooding’s sentence on an improperly calculated amount of value
under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2S1.1 (2000) but stating
that in his view, there were no meritorious issues for appeal.
Advised of her right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Gooding
has not done so. We have reviewed the Appellant’s brief and record,
and assuming without deciding that Gooding’s motion to correct
sentence was properly before the court, we find no error in the
district court’s denial of the motion.
As required by Anders, we have reviewed the record and find no
meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm. This court
requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of her 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 in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on the client.
2
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