US v. Leandre Harwell
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. LEANDRE EUGENE HARWELL, Defendant Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., District Judge. (1:07-cr-00287-NCT-1)
October 10, 2008
April 7, 2009
Before WILKINSON and Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James B. Craven, III, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Michael A. DeFranco, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Leandre Eugene Harwell appeals the ninety-four-month sentence he received after he pled guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)
The district court also imposed a consecutive fourteenWe affirm. erred by him
month sentence for a supervised release violation. Harwell imposing reasonable an contends that the district
without above the
However, the Supreme Court recently decided
that an upward variance does not require notice under either Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(h) or Burns v. United States, 501 U.S. 129 (1991). See Irizarry v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 2198 (2008). We therefore affirm the judgment. * oral argument because in the the facts and legal before We dispense with contentions the court are and
argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED
Because appellate counsel's brief is equivalent to a brief filed pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), Harwell was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief. He did so, but did not raise any additional claims of error. We have examined the entire record for reversible error and found none.
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?