United States v. Jolly , 53 F. App'x 290 ( 2002 )


Menu:
  •                           UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,              
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.                               No. 02-4620
    ROBERT STEVE JOLLY,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham.
    N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief District Judge.
    (CR-01-397)
    Submitted: December 16, 2002
    Decided: December 23, 2002
    Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    COUNSEL
    Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury, Jr.,
    Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
    Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Angela H.
    Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina,
    for Appellee.
    2                       UNITED STATES v. JOLLY
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
    Local Rule 36(c).
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    Robert Steve Jolly appeals his conviction and sentence of twenty-
    seven months’ imprisonment following his guilty plea to possession
    of a firearm by a felon, in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. §§ 922
    (g)(1),
    924(a)(2) (2000). Jolly’s attorney has filed a brief in accordance with
    Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967), asserting the district court
    erred by sentencing Jolly to twenty-seven months’ imprisonment, but
    stating that, in his view, there are no meritorious grounds for appeal.
    Advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Jolly has not
    done so. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
    Jolly challenges the district court’s imposition of a twenty-seven
    month sentence. Because the sentence does not exceed the maximum
    allowed by the Guidelines or statute, we will not review it on appeal.
    See United States v. Porter, 
    909 F.2d 789
    , 794 (4th Cir. 1990) (find-
    ing challenge to court’s exercise of discretion in setting a sentence
    within a properly calculated guideline range not addressable on
    appeal).
    As required by Anders, we have examined the entire record and
    find no other meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm
    Jolly’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 conten-
    tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
    argument would not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-4620

Citation Numbers: 53 F. App'x 290

Judges: Luttig, Michael, Motz, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 12/23/2002

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024