United States v. Gaulden

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Gaulden

95 F. App'x 489

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedApril 20, 2004

Docket03-4019

StatusUnpublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 95 F. App'x 489 (United States v. Gaulden) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Gaulden, 95 F. App'x 489 (4th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Robert Franklin Gaulden was convicted of possession with intent to distribute marijuana, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (2000) and failure to appear, 18 U.S.C. § 3146 (2000). Gaulden’s counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 *490 (1967), raising one issue on appeal, but stating that, in his view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Gaulden was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has failed to do so.

Gaulden failed to appear for his initial trial date in 2001. At trial after his apprehension, counsel from the proceedings leading to the 2001 trial date testified it was inconceivable that he failed to inform Gaulden of the trial date. Gaulden asserts the district court erred in permitting testimony that violated the attorney client privilege. There is no attorney client privilege applicable to the communication of trial dates. United States v. Gray, 876 F.2d 1411, 1415-16 (9th Cir.1989); United States v. Innella, 821 F.2d 1566,1567 (11th Cir.1987); United States v. Bourassa, 411 F.2d 69 (10th Cir.1969).

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Gaulden’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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Robert Franklin Gaulden was convicted of possession with intent to distribute marijuana, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (2000) and failure to appear, 18 U.S.C. § 3146 (2000). Gaulden’s counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 *490 (1967), raising one issue on appeal, but stating that, in his view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Gaulden was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has failed to do so.

Gaulden failed to appear for his initial trial date in 2001. At trial after his apprehension, counsel from the proceedings leading to the 2001 trial date testified it was inconceivable that he failed to inform Gaulden of the trial date. Gaulden asserts the district court erred in permitting testimony that violated the attorney client privilege. There is no attorney client privilege applicable to the communication of trial dates. United States v. Gray, 876 F.2d 1411, 1415-16 (9th Cir.1989); United States v. Innella, 821 F.2d 1566,1567 (11th Cir.1987); United States v. Bourassa, 411 F.2d 69 (10th Cir.1969).

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Gaulden’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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 F. App'x 489, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-gaulden-ca4-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack