United States v. Williams

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-4428
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MICHAEL SHON WILLIAMS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District
Judge. (CR-01-233-HO)
Submitted: February 6, 2003 Decided: February 12, 2003
Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Ethan Ainsworth Ontjes, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Michael Shon Williams, who pled guilty to possessing cocaine
base with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)
(2000), and being a felon in possession of ammunition, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000), appeals from his conviction and
110-month sentence. In a brief filed pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Williams’ attorney states there
are no meritorious issues for appeal, but challenges the
constitutionality of § 841 in the wake of Apprendi v. New Jersey,
530 U.S. 466 (2000), nevertheless. Williams was informed of his
right to file a pro se supplemental brief but failed to do so.
This Court and other courts of appeals have repeatedly upheld
the constitutionality of § 841 following Apprendi. See, e.g.,
United States v. McAllister, 272 F.3d 228, 232 (4th Cir. 2001).
Hence, Williams’ sole argument on appeal is meritless.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm Williams’ 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 a petition would be frivolous, then
counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
2
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