United States v. Atwell , 81 F. App'x 813 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                           UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,              
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.                                No. 03-4073
    MARTY SHANE ATWELL,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville.
    Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge.
    (CR-01-21-V)
    Submitted: October 27, 2003
    Decided: December 4, 2003
    Before LUTTIG, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    COUNSEL
    Eric A. Bach, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Douglas Scott
    Broyles, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina,
    for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
    Local Rule 36(c).
    2                      UNITED STATES v. ATWELL
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    Marty Shane Atwell pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to
    distribute Oxycodone, in violation of 
    21 U.S.C. §§ 841
    (a), 846
    (2000). Atwell was sentenced to 108 months in prison. He now
    appeals. His attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.
    California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967), raising three claims but stating that
    there are no meritorious issues for review. Atwell was advised of his
    right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not filed such a brief.
    Atwell and his coconspirators obtained prescriptions for OxyCon-
    tin through prescription fraud. Atwell also distributed the drug. Inves-
    tigators estimated that Atwell was accountable for approximately
    28,592 dosage units of OxyContin.
    Our review of the record discloses full compliance with Fed. R.
    Crim. P. 11. Further, there is no merit to the claim that the district
    court should have required the United States to move for downward
    departure based upon substantial assistance. We note that the Govern-
    ment must move for such a departure, and there is no suggestion that
    the United States’ decision not to make a motion was based upon
    improper motive or that the United States ceded to the district court
    its authority to make the departure decision. See United States v. But-
    ler, 
    272 F.3d 683
    , 686 (4th Cir. 2001). Finally, we conclude that the
    district court correctly calculated Atwell’s guideline range of 108-135
    months and did not err in sentencing him to 108 months in prison.
    We therefore affirm. As required by counsel, we have reviewed the
    entire record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
    deny counsel’s motion to withdraw from representation at this time.
    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 Atwell requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes
    that such a petition would be frivolous, counsel may move in this
    court to withdraw representation. Counsel’s motion must state that
    counsel served a copy of the motion on Atwell. We dispense with oral
    argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre-
    UNITED STATES v. ATWELL                     3
    sented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid
    the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 03-4073

Citation Numbers: 81 F. App'x 813

Judges: Luttig, Shedd, Duncan

Filed Date: 12/4/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024