US v. Brown

Filing 920070905

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-5112

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ISSAC JERMAINE BROWN, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (8:06-cr-00246)

Submitted: August 30, 2007

Decided:

September 5, 2007

Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Andrew Mackenzie, BARRETT MACKENZIE, L.L.C., Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Maxwell Barnes Cauthen, III, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Issac Jermaine Brown appeals his conviction following his guilty plea to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. His

attorney filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Brown's Anders brief raises the issue of whether his Brown filed a supplemental pro se

plea was knowing and voluntary.

brief raising the issues of whether the Armed Career Criminal Act was applied in error to his sentence and whether counsel was ineffective for allegedly failing to examine Brown's prior

conviction file. brief.

The Government has declined to file a responding

Finding no reversible error, we affirm. Brown suggests that his guilty plea was not knowing and

voluntary.

Brown never sought to withdraw his guilty plea, and we See United The

therefore review his allegations for plain error.

States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525-26 (4th Cir. 2002).

district court ensured that Brown fully understood the significance of his guilty plea and that the plea was knowing and voluntary. The district court satisfactorily complied with its Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 obligations, and we therefore reject Brown's challenge to the integrity of his guilty plea. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal, including those advanced by Brown in his supplemental pro se brief. We therefore affirm Brown's conviction and sentence.

- 2 -

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 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 the client. 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 -