US v. Clement

Filing 920070802

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-5212

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LEONARD A. CLEMENT, a/k/a L, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (05:05-cr-00009-23)

Submitted: July 25, 2007

Decided:

August 2, 2007

Before GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Reggie E. McKnight, MCKNIGHT LAW FIRM, P.L.L.C., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas Tullidge Cullen, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Leonard A. Clement pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than fifty grams of crack cocaine, more than five kilograms of cocaine, and more than 1000 kilograms of marijuana (Count 1), in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000). The district court imposed a mandatory life sentence under 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(b)(1)(A) (West 1999 & Supp. 2007), based upon at least two prior felony drug convictions. Clement's counsel has

filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging Clement's sentence but stating that, in his view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal. pro se supplemental brief. We affirm. Clement filed a

Relying on United States v. Collins, 415 F.3d 304 (4th Cir. 2005), counsel suggests that the district court erred by sentencing Clement without first determining the amount and type of drugs attributable to him individually. Counsel also asserts that

the district court violated Clement's Sixth Amendment rights at sentencing. Because Clement did not object at sentencing on these See United

grounds, this court's review is for plain error.

States v. Smith, 452 F.3d 323, 330-31 (4th Cir.) (discussing standard of review), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 694 (2006). Here,

the district court sentenced Clement to a mandatory life sentence under § 841(b)(1)(A) based upon at least two prior felony drug convictions. Moreover, contrary to Clement's claim in his pro se

- 2 -

supplemental brief that his prior convictions were misdemeanors, he admitted at the sentencing hearing that the prior convictions were felonies. sentence. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record for any meritorious issues and have found none. Thus, we conclude there is no error in Clement's

Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment.

This court

requires that counsel inform the 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 We dispense with oral argument because

was served on the client.

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

- 3 -