The opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 95-5307
LONNIE BROWN,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling.
Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Chief District Judge.
(CR-94-50083)
Submitted: April 30, 1996
Decided: May 31, 1996
Before HALL, WILKINS, and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Hunt L. Charach, Federal Public Defender, C. Cooper Fulton, Assis-
tant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appel-
lant. William D. Wilmoth, United States Attorney, Paul T. Camilletti,
Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for
Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Lonnie Brown appeals from the imposition of a ten-year sentence
for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and to possess with
intent to distribute the same following a guilty plea. Brown seeks
vacatur of his sentence and a new sentencing hearing. Brown's attor-
ney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), raising one potentially meritorious issue, but noting
that even were this issue decided in Brown's favor it would not affect
the outcome of his case. Brown has filed a supplemental brief, but
argues only the issue briefed by his attorney.
Specifically, Brown and his attorney argue that there was insuffi-
cient evidence to prove that the methamphetamine at issue was
D-methamphetamine rather than L-methamphetamine. Unlike
U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 (1994), 21 U.S.C. § 841 (1988) makes no distinc-
tion between types of methamphetamine. The ten-year mandatory
minimum sentence imposed when 100 or more grams of methamphet-
amine are involved thus applies whether the drug at issue is
D-methamphetamine or L-methamphetamine. See United States v.
Massey, 57 F.3d 637, 638 (8th Cir. 1995); United States v. Acklen, 47
F.3d 739, 742 (5th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, so long as 100 or more
grams were involved any error the district court may have made in
sentencing Brown as if the methamphetamine was D-methampheta-
mine would have no effect on the length of his sentence and would
therefore be no more than harmless error. Because we find that over
100 grams of methamphetamine were involved, we hold that this
claim does not entitle Brown to the relief his seeks.*
_________________________________________________________________
*We also grant the Government's motion to incorporate its brief as its
response to Brown's pro se supplemental brief.
2
In accordance with the requirements of Anders , we have examined
the entire record in this case and find no other meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm Brown's sentence and require that coun-
sel inform Brown, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme
Court of the United States for further review. If Brown requests that
a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be
frivolous, then counsel may move this Court for leave to withdraw
from representation. Counsel's motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Brown.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
tions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3