United States v. Robinson , 280 F. App'x 292 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4983
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DARREN L. ROBINSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Thomas E. Johnston,
District Judge. (5:07-cr-00012)
Submitted: May 29, 2008 Decided: June 3, 2008
Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jason D. Parmer, PARMER LAW OFFICE, Hinton, West Virginia, for
Appellant. Miller A. Bushong, III, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Beckley, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Darren L. Robinson appeals the 168-month career offender
sentence imposed by the district court after he pled guilty to
distribution of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)
(2000). Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), suggesting that the district court
erred by denying Robinson’s motion for a downward departure from
the advisory guideline range. Counsel states, however, that there
are no meritorious issues before the court. Robinson was informed
of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not
done so. We affirm.
Counsel questions whether the district court erred by
denying the motion for downward departure. A district court’s
failure to grant a downward departure is not reviewable unless the
district court was under the mistaken impression that it lacked the
authority to depart. United States v. Brewer, 520 F.3d 367, 371
(4th Cir. 2008). Here, there is no evidence that the district
court misunderstood its authority to depart. Thus, we decline to
review this claim.
In accordance with Anders, we have thoroughly reviewed
the record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. This court
requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right
to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
- 2 -
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 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 -