United States v. Graham ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4378
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CARLA GWENNETT GRAHAM,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge.
(CR-02-599)
Submitted: October 23, 2003 Decided: October 29, 2003
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jessica Salvini, SALVINI & BENNETT, L.L.C., Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellant. Elizabeth Jean Howard, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Carla G. Graham appeals from the seventy-month sentence
imposed after she pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent
to distribute and to distribute more than five grams of crack
cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000). Her counsel has
filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738(1967), raising two issues, but stating that, in her view, there
are no meritorious issues for appeal. Graham was informed of her
right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. We
affirm.
Counsel raises as potential issues the district court’s
assessment of a two-level enhancement under U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1(b)(1) (2001), based upon Graham’s
possession of a firearm and the court’s refusal to adjust Graham’s
offense level under USSG § 3B1.2 based upon her role in the
offense. Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the
district court did not clearly err in either regard. See United
States v. Sayles, 296 F.3d 219, 224 (4th Cir. 2002) (providing
standard of review for role in offense adjustment); United States
v. McAllister, 272 F.3d 228, 234 (4th Cir. 2001) (providing
standard of review for possession of a weapon).
As required by Anders, we have examined the entire record and
find no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm
Graham’s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel
2
inform her 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. 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