United State of America v. California, 386 U.S. 738 1967 , claiming there are no meritorious issues

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4951
UNITED STATE OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
TANDREA MYERS,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 06-5089
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
AARON BOONE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District
Judge. (2:05-cr-00978-PMD)
Submitted: June 11, 2007 Decided: July 9, 2007
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

-- 1 of 4 --

- 2 -
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
G. Wells Dickson, Jr., WELLS DICKSON, P.A., Charleston, South
Carolina; Jerry N. Theos, URICCHIO, HOWE, KRELL, JACOBSON, TOPOREK
& THEOS, P.A., Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellants.
Reginald I. Lloyd, United States Attorney, Columbia, South
Carolina, Carlton R. Bourne, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney,
Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 4 --

- 3 -
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Tandrea Myers and Aaron
Boone appeal their convictions and sentences for conspiracy to
distribute 500 grams of cocaine and a quantity of marijuana in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B),(D) & 851 (2000).
On appeal, counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), claiming there are no meritorious issues on
appeal, but raising the question of whether the sentences were
excessive. Boone filed a brief claiming trial counsel and
appellate counsel were ineffective for not arguing that he had a
defense of duress to the enhancement for obstruction of justice.
Finding no error, we affirm.
We find the ranges of imprisonment were properly
calculated under the sentencing guidelines. Thus, Myers’ and
Boone’s sentence at the low end of the guideline range of
imprisonment were reasonable. United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d
339, 341 (4th Cir. 2006).
With respect to Boone’s claim counsel was ineffective,
because the record does not conclusively show that counsel was
ineffective, we will not review the issue and he should raise such
an issue in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. United States v.
Richardson, 195 F.3d 192, 198 (4th Cir. 1999).
Pursuant to Anders, we have examined the entire record
and find no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm

-- 3 of 4 --

- 4 -
the convictions and sentences. We require counsel to inform the
clients, in writing, of their right to petition the Supreme Court
of the United States for further review. If a client requests a
petition be filed, but counsel believes 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 in the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 4 of 4 --