United States of America v. Sherman Coulter, a/k/a Li’l Man, a/k/a Dred

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4533
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
SHERMAN COULTER, a/k/a Li’l Man, a/k/a Dred,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Cameron M. Currie, District Judge.
(CR-02-419)
Submitted: December 18, 2003 Decided: January 15, 2004
Before LUTTIG, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William N. Nettles, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Mark
C. Moore, Assistant United States Attorney, Scott Newton Schools,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Sherman Coulter pleaded guilty to robbery, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1951 (2000), and to causing death during the
commission of a robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 924(j)(1)
(2000). Coulter was sentenced to 365 months incarceration, 5 years
of supervised release, and a $200 special assessment. Coulter’s
attorney has filed a timely appeal under Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), arguing the district court erred in denying the
Government’s motion for Coulter to receive a downward departure for
substantial assistance under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
§ 5K1.1 (1998).
The district court considered the Government’s motion but
found Coulter’s cooperation did not warrant the departure. There
are no grounds to conclude the district court was unaware of its
authority to grant the departure, and consequently, this issue is
not subject to appellate review. United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d
849, 876 (4th Cir. 1996); United States v. Bailey, 975 F.2d 1028,
1035 (4th Cir. 1992); United States v. Bayerle, 898 F.2d 28, 31
(4th Cir. 1990).
Accordingly, we affirm Coulter’s conviction and sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in
this case and find no other 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

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
further review. If the client requests such 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 in the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --