United States v. Holmes, 4th Cir. (2010)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUnited States v. Holmes, 4th Cir. (2010)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4407
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSHUA HOLMES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, Chief District
Judge. (2:08-cr-00845-DCN-1)
Submitted:
June 2, 2010
Before NIEMEYER and
Senior Circuit Judge.
GREGORY,
Decided:
Circuit
Judges,
June 14, 2010
and
HAMILTON,
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
J. Robert Haley, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston,
South Carolina, for Appellant.
William Walter Wilkins, III,
United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, Matthew J.
Modica, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Joshua Holmes appeals from his conviction and fiftyseven month sentence imposed after his guilty plea to one count
of
possession
violation
of
of
Appellate
18
counsel
firearm
U.S.C.
has
after
felony
922(g)(1),
filed
brief
conviction
924(a)(2)
pursuant
to
in
(2006).
Anders
v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts there are
no meritorious issues for appeal.
Holmes was notified of his
right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not done so.
Upon review of the transcript of the Fed. R. Crim. P.
11 hearing, we conclude that the district court complied with
the requirements of Rule 11.
Moreover, Holmes did not move to
withdraw his plea in the district court, so any error in the
Rule 11 hearing is reviewed for plain error.
Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002).
United States v.
Because the record
discloses no such error, Holmess guilty plea was knowing and
See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116,
voluntary.
119-20 (4th Cir. 1991).
The
guidelines
district
range
and
court
properly
imposed
calculated
sentence
within
the
advisory
that
range,
rejecting the Governments request for an upward departure.
We
find
is
that
the
district
court
imposed
procedurally and substantively reasonable.
sentence
that
See Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007) (review of
sentence is for abuse of discretion).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal.
We
therefore
affirm
the
district
courts
judgment.
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 filing would be frivolous,
then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation.
Counsels motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on the client.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal
before
contentions
the
court
are
adequately
and
argument
presented
would
not
in
aid
the
the
materials
decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
