United States v. McDowell ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-5151
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JOHN MICHAEL MCDOWELL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Chief
District Judge. (CR-04-250)
Submitted: August 31, 2006 Decided: September 5, 2006
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randolph M. Lee, LAW OFFICES OF RANDOLPH M. LEE, Charlotte, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Kimlani S. Murray, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
John Michael McDowell pled guilty pursuant to a written
plea agreement to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to
distribute cocaine and cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 846, 841(a)(1) (2000). The district court sentenced McDowell to
188 months’ imprisonment, four years of supervised release, and
ordered payment of a $100 statutory assessment.* McDowell’s
counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds for
appeal, but questioning whether the district court abused its
discretion in ordering certain sex offense conditions as part of
McDowell’s supervised release term. McDowell, pro se, has asserted
error in the district court’s inclusion of his prior convictions
for taking indecent liberties with a minor and breaking and
entering as predicate offenses to support McDowell’s career
offender status.
We find no error by the district court with regard to
imposition of the challenged conditions as part of McDowell’s
supervised release terms. The district court here imposed such
conditions based on McDowell’s previous criminal history, and for
the expressly stated purpose of protecting the public. See 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(C) (2000); 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(d) (West 2000 &
*
The probation officer calculated McDowell’s sentencing
guideline range to be 188 to 235 months’ imprisonment, founded on
a total offense level of 31 and a criminal history category of IV.
- 2 -
Supp. 2006). We find no abuse of discretion in the inclusion of
the challenged conditions of supervised release. United States v.
Dotson, 324 F.3d 256, 260 (4th Cir. 2003) (standard). Nor do we
find any error in the district court’s inclusion of the challenged
prior convictions as predicate offenses for supporting McDowell’s
career offender status under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
§ 4B1.2(a). See United States v. Pierce, 278 F.3d 282, 289-90 (4th
Cir. 2002) (indecent liberties); United States v. Romary, 246 F.3d
339, 342 (4th Cir. 2001) (breaking and entering).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm McDowell’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 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -