US v. Kenneth Duncan

Filing 920081126

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-4008

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KENNETH DUNCAN, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (2:06-cr-01208-PMD-4)

Submitted:

November 12, 2008

Decided:

November 26, 2008

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Russell W. Mace, III, THE MACE FIRM, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, for Appellant. Alston Calhoun Badger, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Kenneth sentence. Lee Duncan appeals his conviction and

Duncan pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to

manufacture, possess with intent to distribute, and distribution of a mixture or substance containing fifty grams or more of methamphetamine. Duncan's counsel has filed a brief pursuant to

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but raising several issues regarding Duncan's brief. sentence. The Duncan has filed a to pro file se a

supplemental brief.

Government

has

declined

Finding no meritorious issues, we affirm. Counsel asserts on Duncan's behalf that the district

court erred in finding Duncan culpable for over 500 grams of methamphetamine, possession of a in applying and a in two level to enhancement grant for a

weapon,

declining

Duncan

reduction for acceptance of responsibility.

We have thoroughly See

reviewed the record and find no error in Duncan's sentence.

United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 456 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1156 (2006). In addition, we have considered

the issues raised by Duncan in his pro se supplemental brief and find the arguments to be without merit. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Duncan's conviction 2 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 filed, review. but If the client requests such a that a petition would be be

counsel

believes

that

petition

frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel's motion must state that Finally, we dispense

a copy thereof was served on the client.

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