United States v. Pilkington ( 1997 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 96-4841
FRED PILKINGTON,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of North Carolina, at Bryson City.
Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge.
(CR-96-30)
Submitted: June 30, 1997
Decided: August 11, 1997
Before HALL, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Tony E. Rollman, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant. William
Mark Boyum, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Car-
olina, for Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Fred Pilkington was convicted by a jury for unlawfully possessing
a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924 (1994). Due to
Pilkington's prior convictions and in accordance with § 4B1.4 of the
United States Sentencing Guidelines, the court sentenced Pilkington
to imprisonment for 235 months as an armed career criminal. Pilking-
ton's attorney filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the proportionality of Pilkington's
sentence, but asserting that, in his view, the issue is without merit and
there are no meritorious ground for appeal. Pilkington filed a pro se
supplemental brief raising the same claim. We affirm.
Pilkington contends that his sentence violates the Eighth Amend-
ment because it is disproportionate to his offense. Specifically, Pilk-
ington claims that his sentence is disproportionate to the gravity of his
nonviolent offense because the court, in determining that he was an
armed career offender, considered a conviction from 1972.* The
Eighth Amendment, however, does not require proportionality review
for a sentence that is less than life without parole. United States v.
LaRouche, 896 F.2d 815, 831-32 (4th Cir. 1990). Because Pilking-
ton's sentence is less than life without parole, we decline to consider
this argument. United States v. Thomas, 900 F.2d 37, 39 (4th Cir.
1990). We find that Pilkington's sentence does not violate the Eighth
Amendment. See United States v. Francois, 889 F.2d 1341, 1343 (4th
Cir. 1989) (finding that sentence within range provided by guidelines
did not violate Eighth Amendment).
In accordance with the requirements of Anders , we have examined
the entire record and find no meritorious issues for appeal. Accord-
ingly, we affirm Pilkington's sentence and conviction. Additionally,
we deny counsel's motion to withdraw from representation and deny
as moot the motion for appointment of new counsel. This court
requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to peti-
tion the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the
_________________________________________________________________
*Consideration of that conviction was proper. See USSG § 4B1.4,
comment. (n. 1).
2
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
3