US v. Julian Lipscomb

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:14-cr-00411-NCT-1. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999828552].. [15-4689]

Appeal: 15-4689

Doc: 20

Filed: 05/20/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4689

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JULIAN HARRISON LIPSCOMB,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
N. Carlton Tilley,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:14-cr-00411-NCT-1)

Submitted:

May 18, 2016

Decided:

May 20, 2016

Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, Mireille P. Clough,
Assistant
Federal
Public
Defender,
Winston-Salem,
North
Carolina, for Appellant.
Kyle David Pousson, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED
STATES
ATTORNEY,
Greensboro,
North
Carolina,
for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4689

Doc: 20

Filed: 05/20/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Julian Harrison Lipscomb pled guilty, pursuant to a written
plea

agreement,

to

felon

in

possession

of

ammunition,

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(e) (2012).

in

He was

sentenced as an armed career criminal to the mandatory minimum
sentence of 180 months’ imprisonment.

On appeal, counsel has

filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal
in her opinion, but questioning whether Lipscomb’s prior North
Carolina conviction for breaking and entering was punishable for
a term exceeding one year to qualify as a predicate offense for
the

armed

career

criminal

sentencing

enhancement.

Although

advised of his right to do so, Lipscomb has not filed a pro se
supplemental brief.

The Government declined to file a brief.

Lipscomb has a prior North Carolina conviction for breaking
and entering for which he received 4 to 14 months’ imprisonment.
Counsel for Lipscomb argues that, because the North Carolina
Justice Reinvestment Act of 2011 required that 9 months of that
sentence

be

served

on

postrelease

supervision,

the

state

conviction was not punishable by a term exceeding a year in
prison.

As

counsel

for

Lipscomb

concedes,

this

argument

is

foreclosed by our recent decision in United States v. Barlow,
811 F.3d 133, 140 (4th Cir. 2015), petition for cert. filed, No.
15-8925 (U.S. Apr. 8, 2016).
2

Appeal: 15-4689

Doc: 20

Filed: 05/20/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this

case

and

Accordingly,

have

we

found

affirm

no

the

meritorious
criminal

issues

judgment.

for

appeal.

This

court

requires that counsel inform Lipscomb, in writing, of the right
to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review.

If

Lipscomb

requests

that

a

petition

be

filed,

but

counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
counsel

may

move

representation.

in

this

court

for

leave

to

withdraw

from

Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof

was served on Lipscomb.

We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials

before

this

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3