United States v. Gordon ( 2005 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4831
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
YUSEF JAMAL GORDON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief
District Judge. (CR-02-780)
Submitted: October 20, 2005 Decided: October 26, 2005
Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John H. Hare, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellant. Jonathan S. Gasser, Acting United States
Attorney, Stacey D. Haynes, Assistant United States Attorney,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Yusef Jamal Gordon entered a conditional plea of guilty
to being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18
U.S.C.A. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(e) (West 2000 & Supp. 2005). He now
appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress and
from his 180-month sentence. Gordon’s attorney filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967),
addressing these issues, but stating that there were no meritorious
issues for appeal. Gordon declined to file a pro se supplemental
brief. At our direction, the parties filed supplemental briefs
addressing the impact of United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738(2005) on this appeal. Because our review of the record discloses
no reversible error, we affirm Gordon’s conviction and sentence.
The district court properly denied Gordon’s motion to
suppress the evidence of the gun, which was discovered in a jacket
that Gordon discarded as he ran from the officers. Because he had
abandoned the jacket, Gordon lacked standing to challenge the
search of the jacket. See Abel v. United States, 362 U.S. 217, 241
(1960); United States v. Flowers, 912 F.2d 707, 711 (4th Cir.
1990). Thus, the evidence was admissible.
Based on Gordon’s prior convictions, the district court
properly found that he qualified as an armed career criminal. See
18 U.S.C. § 922(e)(1). Accordingly, Gordon’s guideline sentencing
range was properly determined to be 168 months to 210 months. The
- 2 -
district court imposed the statutory minimum sentence of 180
months. 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). In addition, because the record
provides no nonspeculative basis suggesting that the district court
would have imposed a lesser term of supervised release under an
advisory guidelines scheme, the mandatory application of the
sentencing guidelines did not affect Gordon’s substantial rights.
See United States v. White, 405 F.3d 208, 216-24 (4th Cir. 2005).
As required by Anders, we have reviewed the entire record
and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore
affirm Gordon’s conviction and sentence. 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 in this
court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion
must state that a copy thereof 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 -