United States v. Tisdale , 81 F. App'x 784 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 03-4047
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    CLARENCE RONDELL TISDALE, a/k/a Gary Olson,
    a/k/a Derek Cory Coakley, a/k/a Donavan Tyrell
    Pryor, a/k/a Samuel Leon Winston, a/k/a James
    Jackson, a/k/a Derek O. Oakley,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Charleston.   Patrick Michael Duffy, District
    Judge. (CR-02-289)
    Submitted:   November 6, 2003             Decided:   December 1, 2003
    Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Diedreich P. Von Lehe, III, DIEDREICH P. VON LEHE, III, P.A.,
    Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant.    Mary Gordon Baker,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Clarence Tisdale seeks to appeal his sentence of thirty-six
    months’ imprisonment imposed following his guilty plea pursuant to
    a written plea agreement to uttering and possessing counterfeit
    securities, in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 513
     (2000).                 Tisdale’s
    counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967), alleging one sentencing issue: whether the district
    court abused its discretion in sentencing Tisdale within the
    appropriate guidelines range.          Counsel stated that, in his view,
    this issue is not a meritorious ground for appeal. Though notified
    of his right to do so, Tisdale has not filed a pro se supplemental
    brief.     After reviewing the calculation of Tisdale’s sentence and
    the record on appeal, we find no error and affirm.
    In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record
    in this case and have found 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   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
    2
    materials   before   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the
    decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 03-4047

Citation Numbers: 81 F. App'x 784

Judges: Widener, Michael, Traxler

Filed Date: 12/1/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024