United States v. Mungo ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4958
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DWAYNE EDDIE MUNGO,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees,
District Judge. (CR-02-215)
Submitted: February 22, 2006 Decided: March 15, 2006
Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
H. Thomas Church, THE CHURCH LAW FIRM, Mooresville, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, United States Attorney,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Dwayne Eddie Mungo pled guilty to one count of possession
of a firearm by a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 922(g)(1),
924(e) (West 2000 & Supp. 2005). He was sentenced to the statutory
minimum term of fifteen years’ imprisonment. On appeal, counsel
filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738(1967), stating there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but
addressing whether Mungo was properly found to be an armed career
criminal under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4B1.4 (2004).
Mungo was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental
brief, but did not do so. The Government did not file a brief.
Finding no error, we affirm.
We find there was no error in classifying Mungo as an
armed career criminal and increasing his statutory minimum sentence
to fifteen years’ imprisonment. Because Mungo was sentenced to the
statutory minimum term of imprisonment, we find no error with the
application of the sentencing guidelines.
As required by Anders, we have examined the entire record
in this case and find no error. Accordingly, we affirm Mungo’s
conviction and sentence. This court requires counsel to inform
Mungo, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of
the United States for further review. If he requests a petition be
filed, but counsel believes such a petition would be frivolous,
then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
- 2 -
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Mungo. 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 -