United States v. Suggs

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4846
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
EDWARD KEITH SUGGS, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District
Judge. (CR-03-110)
Submitted: April 21, 2004 Decided: April 29, 2004
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Eric D. Placke,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Angela Hewlett Miller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Edward Keith Suggs, Jr., pled guilty to possession of a
firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)
(2000). The district court sentenced Suggs to sixty-five months
imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release. Suggs
appeals his conviction and sentence. Counsel has filed a brief in
accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising
two issues but stating that, in his view, there are no meritorious
grounds for appeal. Suggs was informed of his right to file a pro
se supplemental brief but has not done so. Finding no error, we
affirm.
Counsel first questions whether the district court erred
by denying Suggs’s motion to suppress. Factual findings underlying
a motion to suppress are reviewed for clear error, and legal
determinations are reviewed de novo. Ornelas v. United States, 517
U.S. 690, 691 (1996). When a suppression motion has been denied,
we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the
Government. United States v. Seidman, 156 F.3d 542, 547 (4th Cir.
1998). Guided by these standards, we find no error in the district
court's determination that the affidavit supporting the search
warrant for Suggs’s residence, though perhaps inartfully written,
did not contain false statements in reckless disregard for the
truth. See Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978).
- 2 -
Next, Suggs challenges the sixty-five month sentence
imposed by the district court. We find that the guideline range
was correctly calculated. Furthermore, because the sentence is
within the properly calculated guideline range and the statutory
maximum penalty for the offense, this court has no authority to
review the district court’s imposition of this specific sentence.
United States v. Porter, 909 F.2d 789, 794 (4th Cir. 1990).
As required by Anders, we have examined the entire record
and find no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm
Suggs's 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.
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 -