United States of America v. California, 386 U.S. 738 1967 , alleging that there are no meritorious claims

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4756
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ARTIE PATTERSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Beckley. David A. Faber, Chief
District Judge. (CR-99-36)
Submitted: February 27, 2004 Decided: March 12, 2004
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Charleston, West
Virginia, for Appellant. Kasey Warner, United States Attorney,
Karen B. George, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

- 2 -
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Artie Patterson’s supervised release was revoked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 (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 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

-- 2 of 2 --