United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUnited States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Uploaded by
Scribd Government Docs916 F.
2d 711
Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of
unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing
res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires
service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth
Circuit.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Dennis WILLIAMS, a/k/a Dennis Leonard, a/k/a Nushwill St.
Albans Williams, a/k/a George Washington Barker,
a/k/a Devon, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 89-5262.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 1, 1990.
Decided Oct. 19, 1990.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland,
at Baltimore. John R. Hargrove, District Judge. (CR-89-104-HAR)
Robert B. Green, Irwin, Kerr, Green, McDonald & Dexter, Baltimore,
Md., for appellant.
Breckinridge L. Willcox, United States Attorney, Billy S. Bradley,
Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Md., for appellee.
D.Md.
AFFIRMED.
Before DONALD RUSSELL and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges, and
BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM:
Dennis Williams appeals his conviction of conspiracy to distribute over 500
grams of cocaine base (21 U.S.C. Sec. 846) and the Guidelines sentence
imposed. His attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that in his view there are no nonfrivolous issues
for appeal. Williams has filed a supplemental pro se brief on his own behalf.
Williams asserts that there was no evidence that the conspiracy involved more
than 500 grams of crack, as stated in his presentence report, and that his offense
level was set improperly high as a result. This argument was made by Williams'
attorney at sentencing and rejected by the district court. We review the district
court's determination as to the amount of drugs under the clearly erroneous
standard, United States v. Daughtrey, 874 F.2d 213 (4th Cir.1989), and find no
error. Williams also claims that the prosecutor misrepresented the amount of
drugs as being over 500 grams in his closing argument. We find that amount to
be a reasonable inference from the evidence presented.
Williams further contends that his sentence was unduly harsh because codefendants received lesser sentences and because this was his first offense.
However, his criminal history score reflected his lack of prior offenses. A codefendant's lesser sentence does not warrant a departure from a properly
computed Guidelines sentence. United States v. Goff, 907 F.2d 1441 (4th
Cir.1990).
Finally, Williams claims that the judge instructed the jury to find him guilty
and that his attorney was ineffective in several respects. We find the alleged
improper instruction to be simply a minor error in the transcription. The
ineffective assistance claim is more properly brought in a motion to vacate
sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255, and we do not reach it here.
In accordance with the requirements of Anders, supra, we have examined the
entire record in this case and find no other meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm the conviction and sentence. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the record
and briefs, and oral argument would not aid the decisional process.
Pursuant to the plan adopted by the Fourth Circuit Judicial Council in
implementation of the Criminal Justice Act of 1964 (18 U.S.C. Sec. 3006A),
this Court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to
petition the Supreme Court for further review. If requested by his client to do
so, counsel should prepare a timely petition for a writ of certiorari. Therefore,
counsel's motion to withdraw from further representation is denied.
AFFIRMED.
