United States v. Williams

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-4490
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DARRELL LAMONT WILLIAMS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(CR-01-183)
Submitted: January 23, 2003 Decided: February 3, 2003
Before LUTTIG and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael S. Seekings, MULLEN, WYLIE & SEEKINGS, Charleston, South
Carolina, for Appellant. Miller Williams Shealy, Jr., OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Darrell Lamont Williams appeals from his conviction and 240-
month sentence pursuant to a guilty plea to the charge of
conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute
five kilograms or more of cocaine and fifty grams or more of crack
cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a), 846 (2000).
Williams’ counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he raises the issue of
whether the district court correctly applied the Sentencing
Guidelines. The mandatory statutory minimum for conspiracy to
distribute more than fifty grams of cocaine base is twenty years.
21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(iii) (2000). Therefore, the district court
did not err by sentencing Williams to a term of 240 months.
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
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on the client.
2
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