US v. Brown
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
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
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
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
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.
- 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?