United States of America v. California, 386 U.S. 738 1967 , alleging one sentencing issue: whether the district…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4047
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CLARENCE RONDELL TISDALE, a/k/a Gary Olson,
a/k/a Derek Cory Coakley, a/k/a Donavan Tyrell
Pryor, a/k/a Samuel Leon Winston, a/k/a James
Jackson, a/k/a Derek O. Oakley,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District
Judge. (CR-02-289)
Submitted: November 6, 2003 Decided: December 1, 2003
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Diedreich P. Von Lehe, III, DIEDREICH P. VON LEHE, III, P.A.,
Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Mary Gordon Baker,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Clarence Tisdale seeks to appeal his sentence of thirty-six
months’ imprisonment imposed following his guilty plea pursuant to
a written plea agreement to uttering and possessing counterfeit
securities, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 513 (2000). Tisdale’s
counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967), alleging one sentencing issue: whether the district
court abused its discretion in sentencing Tisdale within the
appropriate guidelines range. Counsel stated that, in his view,
this issue is not a meritorious ground for appeal. Though notified
of his right to do so, Tisdale has not filed a pro se supplemental
brief. After reviewing the calculation of Tisdale’s sentence and
the record on appeal, we find no error and affirm.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. 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

-- 2 of 3 --

3
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --