US v. Kenneth Duncan
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
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)
November 12, 2008
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
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
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
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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?