United States v. Cureton , 158 F. App'x 492 ( 2005 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4275
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
LACARLOS DEMOND CURETON, a/k/a Loco,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief
District Judge. (CR-02-1173-JFA)
Submitted: December 22, 2005 Decided: December 28, 2005
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mario A. Pacella, STROM LAW FIRM, L.L.C., Columbia, South Carolina,
for Appellant. Marshall Prince, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
LaCarlos Demond Cureton appeals his conviction following
his guilty plea and 231-month sentence for conspiracy to distribute
and possess with intent to distribute cocaine base, in violation of
21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) and 846 (2000). Cureton’s
attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the calculation of Cureton’s base
offense level and the application of a two-level enhancement for
possession of a firearm in connection with a drug trafficking
crime, but stating that he finds no meritorious grounds for appeal.
Though notified of his opportunity to do so, Cureton has not filed
a pro se supplemental brief. The Government has declined to file
an answering brief. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
In the Anders brief, counsel contends that the district
court improperly determined Cureton’s base offense level of thirty-
eight based upon the amount of drugs attributed to him. Because
Cureton did not file objections to the Presentence Report and did
not object at sentencing, we review for plain error. See United
States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-32 (1993). Cureton’s plea
agreement stipulated to 1.5 kilograms of cocaine base. Moreover, at
the change of plea hearing, Cureton assured the court that he
agreed to this stipulation. Accordingly, we find no plain error.
See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1 (a)(3)(c)(1).
- 2 -
Additionally, we reject Cureton’s claim that the district
court improperly applied a two-level enhancement for possession of
a firearm during a drug trafficking crime. According to the
Presentence Report, Cureton freely admitted to possessing a semi-
automatic weapon while trafficking narcotics. At sentencing,
Cureton offered no objection to this fact. Accordingly, we find no
plain error. Olano, 507 U.S. at 731-32.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm Cureton’s conviction and sentence.
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 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 -