United States v. Pettaway , 283 F. App'x 109 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 -