Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
No. 98-4545
JEFFREY LEVERING,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley.
Robert C. Chambers, District Judge.
(CR-98-22)
Submitted: February 16, 1999
Decided: March 12, 1999
Before ERVIN, HAMILTON, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Hunt L. Charach, Federal Public Defender, Edward H. Weis, First
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for
Appellant. Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attorney, John L. File,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for
Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
fied or less culpable in his conduct because he carried the weapon for
"insurance" in a potential conflict. This is not the same as punishing
Levering for associating with a white supremacist group.
As the district court sentenced within the guideline, without any
suggestion of an unconstitutional motivation, we cannot review the
sentencing court's discretion to select a sentence within a properly
computed sentencing range. United States v. Pridgen, 64 F.3d 147,
149 (4th Cir. 1995). Therefore, this claim lacks merit.
As required by Anders, we have independently reviewed the entire
record in this case and find no reversible error. 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 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 affirm Levering's conviction and sentence. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and oral argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
5