United States of America v. California, 386 U.S. 738 1967 , raising one issue but stating that, in his view,…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-4988
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
FRED NEAL, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees,
District Judge. (CR-02-23)
Submitted: May 20, 2003 Decided: June 19, 2003
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Scott Gsell, LAW OFFICE OF SCOTT GSELL, Charlotte, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Robert John Gleason, Assistant United States
Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Fred Neal, Jr., appeals his conviction and sentence for two
counts of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000). Neal’s attorney has
filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), raising one issue but stating that, in his view, there are
no meritorious grounds for appeal. Although notified of his right
to do so, Neal has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. Finding
no reversible error, we affirm.
In the Anders brief, counsel questions whether the district
court erred in sentencing Neal to ninety-six months of
imprisonment. We find that we have no authority to review the
district court’s decision to sentence Neal to ninety-six months
because this sentence is within the guideline range and is below
the statutory maximum sentence of ten years. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 924(a)(2) (2000) (setting forth statutory maximum). Because
Neal’s sentence does not exceed the maximum allowed by the
Guidelines or statute, we will not review it on appeal. See United
States v. Porter, 909 F.2d 789, 794 (4th Cir. 1990) (finding
challenge to court’s exercise of discretion in setting a sentence
within a properly calculated guideline range not addressable on
appeal).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We

-- 2 of 3 --

3
therefore affirm Neal’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 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 of 3 --