United States v. Nelson , 409 F. App'x 660 ( 2011 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-7008
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MALIK ABDHUL NELSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(4:04-cr-00811-TLW-2)
Submitted: January 18, 2011 Decided: January 26, 2011
Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ray Coit Yarborough, Jr., LAW OFFICE OF RAY COIT YARBOROUGH,
JR., Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. Alfred William
Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence,
South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Malik Abdhul Nelson seeks to appeal the district
court’s order granting the government’s Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b)
motion and reducing his sentence from sixty-four to fifty
months’ imprisonment. Nelson’s counsel has filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
questioning whether we can review a district court’s order
granting a Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b) motion, but concluding that 18
U.S.C. § 3742 (2006) provides no basis for the appeal. Nelson
was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief,
but has not done so. The Government declined to file a brief.
We lack the authority to review a district court’s
decision concerning Rule 35(b) motions unless the ultimate
sentence was imposed in violation of the law. United States v.
Hartwell, 448 F.3d 707, 712-14 (4th Cir. 2006); United States v.
Pridgen, 64 F.3d 147, 148-50 (4th Cir. 1995); see 18 U.S.C.
§ 3742. We conclude that the sentence Nelson received was not
imposed in violation of the law, and thus we lack the authority
to review the district court’s order.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore dismiss the appeal. This court requires that
counsel inform Nelson, in writing, of his right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If
2
Nelson requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes
that such a petition would be frivolous, counsel may move in
this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s
motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Nelson. 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