US v. Roberts

Filing 920070417

Opinion

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-4861 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAMES LOUIS ROBERTS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:05-cr-00275) Submitted: March 21, 2007 Decided: April 17, 2007 Before MICHAEL, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Scott Gsell, LAW OFFICE OF SCOTT GSELL, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. David Alan Brown, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: James Louis Roberts pled guilty to one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), and one count of possession of a stolen vehicle, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 3231, and the district court sentenced him to forty-one months in prison. Roberts's counsel has filed in this court a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he raises one issue at Roberts's request, but states that, in his view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Specifically, Roberts's counsel argues that Roberts's two convictions constituted one course of conduct pursuant to USSG 3D1.2(d) and therefore the district court should have considered them as one group when sentencing him rather than enhancing his sentence with a multiple count adjustment pursuant to USSG 3D1.4. Roberts was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he declined to do so. We conclude that the district court properly denied Roberts's request to group his offenses for sentencing under USSG 3D1.2(d) because very few of the firearms were stolen and none of the firearms were found in the stolen vehicle. Moreover, the offenses had different victims and the offenses were not otherwise related. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We - 2 - therefore affirm Roberts's convictions and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Roberts, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Roberts requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that 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 Roberts. 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 -

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?