United States v. Pettaway ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 07-4456
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    MARLON PETTAWAY, a/k/a Chrome,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Newport News.   Jerome B. Friedman,
    District Judge. (4:06-cr-00098-JBF)
    Submitted:    June 18, 2008                   Decided:   July 3, 2008
    Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Trevor Jared Robinson, ROBINSON LAW GROUP, Norfolk, Virginia, for
    Appellant.    Eric Matthew Hurt, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
    ATTORNEY, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Marlon Pettaway was convicted after a bench trial of
    conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute
    more than fifty grams of crack cocaine, more than one kilogram of
    heroin, and a quantity of cocaine, in violation of 
    21 U.S.C. § 846
    (2000); engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise, in violation
    of 
    21 U.S.C.A. § 848
     (West 1999 & Supp. 2008); possessing with
    intent to distribute more than fifty grams of crack cocaine, in
    violation of 
    21 U.S.C. § 841
    (a)(1) (2000); brandishing a firearm in
    relation to a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 
    18 U.S.C.A. § 924
    (c)(1) (West 2000 & Supp. 2008); two additional counts of
    possessing a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking crimes, in
    violation of § 924(c)(1); and three counts of possessing a firearm
    after having been convicted of a felony, in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 922
    (g)(1) (2000).   The district court sentenced Pettaway to life
    plus fifty-seven years of imprisonment.
    On   appeal,   counsel    has    filed   a   brief   pursuant   to
    Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967), questioning whether the
    trial court erred by denying Pettaway’s motions to substitute
    counsel, for a continuance, and for a mistrial but stating that, in
    his view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Pettaway was
    informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he
    has not done so.   We affirm.
    - 2 -
    Pettaway’s counsel questions whether the trial court
    abused its discretion in denying Pettaway’s motion to substitute
    counsel, in refusing to continue the case, and in denying his
    motion for a mistrial.      Our careful review of the trial transcript
    convinces us that the district court did not abuse its discretion
    in denying the motions.         See United States v. Wallace, 
    515 F.3d 327
    , 330 (4th Cir. 2008) (stating standard of review for denial of
    motion for mistrial); United States v. Williams, 
    445 F.3d 724
    , 738
    (4th    Cir.    2006)   (stating    standard   of    review   for    denial   of
    continuance); United States v. Reevey, 
    364 F.3d 151
    , 156 (4th Cir.
    2004)    (stating    standard   of    review   for   denial   of     motion    to
    substitute counsel).
    In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
    for    any   potentially   meritorious    issues     and   have     found   none.
    Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.                   We deny
    Pettaway’s pro se motion for the appointment of counsel and his
    application to proceed with new counsel under the Criminal Justice
    Act.     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
    - 3 -
    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
    - 4 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-4456

Judges: Gregory, Duncan, Hamilton

Filed Date: 7/3/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024