United States v. Straws , 257 F. App'x 637 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4238
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JABBAR JOMO STRAWS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief
District Judge. (3:05-cr-00684-JFA)
Submitted: November 26, 2007 Decided: December 6, 2007
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Nathaniel Roberson, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Tara
L. McGregor, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jabbar Jomo Straws pled guilty to one count of being a
felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. He was sentenced
to a term of 210 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Straws’ attorney
has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967), concluding that there are no meritorious issues for
appeal but raising as potential issues whether the district court
fully complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, and whether the district
court properly handled Straws’ pro se motions at sentencing.
Although advised of his right to do so, Straws has not filed a pro
se supplemental brief.
First, we have thoroughly reviewed the record and find
that the district court fully complied with the requirements of
Rule 11 at Straws’ guilty plea hearing. Next, our review of
Straws’ pro se motions and his colloquy with the district court at
sentencing regarding those motions discloses that Straws knowingly
and willingly withdrew the motions after ample opportunity to be
heard and confer with counsel.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record for any meritorious issues and have found none.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s 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
- 2 -
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 -