United States v. Wright ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4462
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
WILLIAM DAVID WRIGHT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. H. Brent McKnight,
District Judge. (CR-02-219)
Submitted: March 8, 2006 Decided: March 20, 2006
Before WILLIAMS, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Scott H. Gsell, LAW OFFICE OF SCOTT GSELL, Charlotte, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Robert John Gleason, Assistant United
States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
William David Wright appeals his convictions and
180-month sentence* imposed after he pled guilty to using,
carrying, or possessing a firearm during and in relation to his
possession with intent to distribute marijuana (Count 2), in
violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c) (West 2000 & Supp. 2005), and
possessing a firearm having previously been convicted of certain
enumerated felonies under North Carolina law (Count 3), in
violation of 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(e) (West 2000 & Supp.
2005). Wright’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning whether the district
court properly sentenced Wright as an armed career criminal but
stating that, in counsel’s view, there are no meritorious issues
for appeal. Wright filed pro se supplemental briefs raising a
similar issue. Wright also challenges the validity of his guilty
plea, contends that he could not be convicted of a § 924(c) offense
when he did not plead guilty to the underlying controlled substance
offense, and asserts that, in light of United States v. Booker, 543
U.S. 220 (2005), his sentence violates the Sixth Amendment. We
affirm.
Counsel questions whether the district court properly
sentenced Wright as an armed career criminal. Because Wright did
*
The district court granted the Government’s motion for
downward departure based upon Wright’s substantial assistance.
- 2 -
not raise this issue in the district court, we review for plain
error. United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 547-48, 555 (4th
Cir. 2005) (discussing standard of review). Our review of the
record convinces us that the district court did not plainly err in
concluding that Wright qualified as an armed career criminal and
that his sentence does not violate the Sixth Amendment. See United
States v. Thompson, 421 F.3d 278, 282, 283-86 (4th Cir. 2005)
(stating that this court cannot be “willfully blind” to information
pertaining to prior conviction, such as “date [of the conviction],
statutory violation, and the like” and holding that nature and
occasion of offenses are facts inherent in convictions and those
facts need not be alleged in indictment or submitted to jury),
cert. denied, __ U.S. __, 2006 WL 521274 (U.S. Mar. 6, 2006)
(No. 05-7266); United States v. Cheek, 415 F.3d 349, 354 (4th Cir.)
(holding that application of armed career criminal enhancement
falls within exception for prior convictions when there is no
dispute as to fact or characterization of those convictions), cert.
denied, 126 S. Ct. 640 (2005).
With regard to the claims raised in Wright’s pro se
supplemental briefs, we find those claims to be without merit. In
accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record for any
meritorious issues and have found none. Accordingly, we affirm
Wright’s convictions and sentence. This court requires that
counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the
- 3 -
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
- 4 -