United States v. Hinds ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4902
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
LEBERT GEORGE HINDS, a/k/a Benjamin Lamar
Douglas, a/k/a Lebert George Hines,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees,
District Judge. (CR-03-29)
Submitted: April 19, 2006 Decided: May 3, 2006
Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Matthew A. Victor, VICTOR, VICTOR & HELGOE, L.L.P., Charleston,
West Virginia, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Lebert George Hinds pled guilty to possession with intent
to distribute fifty grams or more of crack cocaine, in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000). The district court sentenced him as
a career offender to a 262-month term of imprisonment. Hinds’
counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967), challenging Hinds’ sentence but stating that, in his
view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Hinds has filed
a pro se supplemental brief. We affirm.
Hinds asserts that the district court erred in
classifying him as a career offender under U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual § 4B1.1 (2003). Because Hinds did not object in
the district court, this court’s review is for plain error. United
States v. Harp, 406 F.3d 242, 245 (4th Cir.) (stating standard of
review), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 297 (2005). We conclude that the
district court properly designated Hinds as a career offender. See
id. (discussing elements of USSG § 4B1.1(a)).
Citing United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005),
Hinds asserts that his career offender sentence violates his Sixth
Amendment rights because the prior convictions were not admitted by
him or submitted to a jury. Because Hinds did not raise this issue
in the district court, our review is for plain error. See United
States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 547 (4th Cir. 2005). Hinds’
argument is foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Collins,
- 2 -
412 F.3d 515, 521-23 (4th Cir. 2005) (holding that application of
career offender enhancement falls within exception for prior
convictions where facts were undisputed, making it unnecessary to
engage in further fact finding about prior conviction). Thus,
there is no Sixth Amendment error in this case.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record for any meritorious issues and have found none.
Accordingly, we affirm Hinds’ 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 -