US v. Kevin Davis

Filing 920090825

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-4101

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KEVIN LYNDELL DAVIS, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:07-cr-01177-RBH-1)

Submitted:

July 21, 2009

Decided:

August 25, 2009

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William F. Nettles, IV, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Pursuant to a written plea agreement, Kevin Lyndell Davis pled guilty to Hobbs Act robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a)

(2006).

The plea agreement specified that a six-year sentence

was appropriate; this provision was binding upon the district court upon acceptance of the plea agreement. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C). Davis accordingly was sentenced to six years in prison. pursuant He to now appeals. v. His attorney 386 has U.S. was filed 738 a brief

Anders whether

California, guilty

(1967), and his

questioning

Davis'

plea

valid

sentence reasonable, but stating that there are no grounds for appeal. Davis was notified of his right to file a pro se

supplemental brief but has not filed such a brief. Our review of the transcript of the

We affirm. plea colloquy

discloses full compliance with Rule 11.

Furthermore, the record

reveals that Davis entered his plea voluntarily and knowingly and that there was a factual basis for the plea. conclude that the six-year sentence is reasonable. We have reviewed the entire record in accordance with Anders appeal. and have not identified any meritorious issues for Finally, we

Accordingly, we affirm.

This court requires counsel to

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 2

that such a petition would be frivolous, counsel may move in this court to withdraw from representation. Counsel's motion

must state that a copy of the motion 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