Scribd
Upload
36 views3 pages

United States v. Ross, 4th Cir. (2003)

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an unpublished opinion affirming the district court's sentence of Eric Ross to 84 months imprisonment following his guilty plea. Ross's attorney claimed on appeal that the district court erred by not departing further than 63 months below the sentencing guidelines range for the drug count. However, the Court of Appeals found that it did not have jurisdiction to review the extent of the district court's downward departure, as the exceptions allowing such review did not apply. The Court of Appeals therefore affirmed Ross's convictions and sentence.

Uploaded by

Scribd Government Docs
Copyright
© Public Domain
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
36 views3 pages

United States v. Ross, 4th Cir. (2003)

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an unpublished opinion affirming the district court's sentence of Eric Ross to 84 months imprisonment following his guilty plea. Ross's attorney claimed on appeal that the district court erred by not departing further than 63 months below the sentencing guidelines range for the drug count. However, the Court of Appeals found that it did not have jurisdiction to review the extent of the district court's downward departure, as the exceptions allowing such review did not apply. The Court of Appeals therefore affirmed Ross's convictions and sentence.

Uploaded by

Scribd Government Docs
Copyright
© Public Domain
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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
Virginia,
Travis N.
Virginia,

Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Charleston, West


for Appellant.
Kasey Warner, United States Attorney,
Gery, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:
Eric Ross appeals the district courts 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 courts 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

United States v. Shaw, 313 F.3d

application of the Guidelines.

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

jurisdiction

to

review

the

extent

of

the

district

courts

departure.
We have reviewed the record as required by Anders and find no
meritorious issues for appeal.
convictions and sentence.

Accordingly, we affirm Ross

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.

Counsels 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

You might also like