United States of America v. California, 386 U.S. 738 1967 , counsel for Ross claims that the district court…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4117
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ERIC ROSS, a/k/a L,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr.,
District Judge. (CR-02-254)
Submitted: June 30, 2003 Decided: July 14, 2003
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Charleston, West
Virginia, for Appellant. Kasey Warner, United States Attorney,
Travis N. Gery, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Eric Ross appeals the district court’s order sentencing him to
eighty-four months imprisonment following his guilty plea to
distribution of cocaine base and aiding and abetting the possession
of firearms in the furtherance of a drug trafficking crime in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 924(c) (2000), and 21 U.S.C. § 841
(2000). In his appeal, filed pursuant to Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), counsel for Ross claims that the district court
erred by failing to depart further than sixty-three months below
the applicable sentencing range on the drug count. Ross was advised
of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but failed to do
so. We affirm.
We review a district court’s decision to depart from the
sentencing guidelines for an abuse of discretion. United States v.
Pearce, 191 F.3d 488, 492 (4th Cir. 1999) (citing Koon v. United
States, 518 U.S. 81, 96-100 (1996)). However, “we do not have the
authority to review the extent to which a district court departs
downward unless ‘the departure decision resulted in a sentence
imposed in violation of law or resulted from an incorrect
application of the Guidelines.’” United States v. Shaw, 313 F.3d
219, 222 (4th Cir. 2002) (quoting United States v. Hill, 70 F.3d
321, 324 (4th Cir. 1995)). On appeal, Ross acknowledges that the
exceptions in Shaw do not apply. We therefore do not have

-- 2 of 3 --

3
jurisdiction to review the extent of the district court’s
departure.
We have reviewed the record as required by Anders and find no
meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm Ross’
convictions 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

-- 3 of 3 --