United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Charles Leon Curtis, Defendant-appellant, 898 F.2d 148 (4th Cir. 1990)

Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - 898 F.2d 148 (4th Cir. 1990) Submitted: Feb. 7, 1990. Decided: March 5, 1990

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., District Judge. (CR-89-8)

Mary G. Commander, Goldblatt, Lipkin, Cohen, Anderson, Jenkins & Legum, P.C., Norfolk, Va., for appellant.

Henry E. Hudson, United States Attorney; Albert D. Alberi, Special Assistant United States Attorney; Robert J. Seidel, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Va., for appellee.

E.D. Va.

AFFIRMED.

Before WIDENER and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:


Charles Leon Curtis entered a plea of guilty to conspiracy to distribute less than 500 grams of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. The district court entered a judgment of conviction and sentenced Curtis to a three-year term of imprisonment and ordered a $50 special assessment. Curtis appeals on the grounds that the length of the sentence was improper and the district court erred in denying his request to recommend that the federal sentence be served in a state prison where he was imprisoned for another crime.

Curtis's arguments are without merit. The plea agreement signed by Curtis clearly states that the sentence to be imposed is within the discretion of the sentencing judge. The three-year sentence was within the twenty-year maximum term for the offense. The court properly exercised its discretion not to recommend Curtis's request to serve his sentence in a state facility. Because Curtis's counsel states in her brief that she has found no error, we have searched the record for errors in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Finding none, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.