United States v. Patterson

89 F. App'x 407
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Patterson. Read the opinion of the Court — 22 F. App'x 163
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided March 12, 2004·No. 03-4756·Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Artie Patterson’s supervised release was revoked following his sale of crack cocaine. He was sentenced to thirty-six months of imprisonment. On appeal, his counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), alleging that there are no meritorious claims on appeal but raising the following issue: whether the district court erred because it sentenced him outside the guideline range as calculated under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) § 7B1.4, p.s. (2002).

As counsel concedes, this claim fails because sentencing ranges as set out in USSG § 7B1.4 are advisory and not binding. United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 640-41 (4th Cir.1995).

We have examined the entire record in this case in accordance with the requirements of Anders, and find no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm. This court requires that counsel inform his *408 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

United States v. Patterson, 89 F. App'x 407 (4th Cir. 2004).

89 F. App'x 407 (United States v. Patterson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
United States v. Harold Davis
53 F.3d 638 (Fourth Circuit, 1995)