US v. Kenneth Duncan, No. 08-4008 (4th Cir. 2008)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4008 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KENNETH DUNCAN, Defendant - Appellant.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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 supplemental brief. brief. sentence. The Duncan Government has has filed declined a pro se to file 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, in possession weapon, of a applying and a in two level declining reduction for acceptance of responsibility. enhancement to grant for Duncan a We have thoroughly reviewed the record and find no error in Duncan s sentence. See 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 counsel the client believes requests that such that a a petition petition would be 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. Finally, we dispense 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

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.