US v. Lamonds
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus STEVEN ANTHONY LAMONDS, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:06-cr-00244-JAB; 1:06-cr-00282-JAB-1)
October 18, 2007
October 23, 2007
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, William S. Trivette, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Clifton Thomas Barrett, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Steven Anthony Lamonds pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to six offenses arising out of a bank robbery and a robbery of a Food Lion grocery store. Lamonds was sentenced as
an armed career criminal to 180 months of imprisonment on all counts except Count Three of the bank robbery indictment
(brandishing a short-barreled shotgun during a bank robbery), for which he was sentenced to a mandatory minimum consecutive term of ten years imprisonment. 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(B), (e)(1) (2000).
Lamonds' attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), contending that no meritorious district issues exist an for appeal but suggesting that the
States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).
Although informed of his
right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Lamonds has not done so. Lamonds was sentenced to a total term of 300 months imprisonment, the statutory mandatory minimum sentence. The
district court possessed no discretion to sentence below the statutory mandatory minimum sentence, because "Booker did nothing to alter the rule that judges cannot depart below a statutorily provided minimum sentence." United States v. Robinson, 404 F.3d
850, 862 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 916 (2005). In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
- 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 this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel's motion must state that a copy We dispense with oral argument
thereof was served on the client.
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?