United States v. Burris , 231 F. App'x 281 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4874
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JOHNNY BOYD BURRIS, JR., a/k/a Rahiymu El Bey,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (0:03-cr-00551-CMC)
Submitted: May 25, 2007 Decided: July 2, 2007
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Allen B. Burnside, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Stacey Denise Haynes, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
A jury convicted Johnny Boyd Burris, Jr., of possession
of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000). The district court sentenced Burris
to a forty-six-month term of imprisonment. Burris’ counsel has
filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738(1967), raising several issues but stating that, in his view, there
are no meritorious grounds for appeal. Burris was informed of his
right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not done so.
We affirm.
Counsel first notes that Burris “only wanted to argue
that the court lacked jurisdiction because of his status as a
Moorish American National.” (Appellant’s Br. at 20). This claim
is patently frivolous. Federal district courts retain original
jurisdiction over offenses against the laws of the United States.
18 U.S.C. § 3231 (2000).
Next, counsel states that the district court found Burris
competent to stand trial and that the court concluded that his
belief system did not affect his ability to understand the nature
of the proceedings against him. To the extent counsel questions
the district court’s competency ruling, we find no clear error in
the district court’s ruling. See United States v. Robinson, 404
F.3d 850, 856 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating standard of review and
providing standard); cf. United States v. James, 328 F.3d 953,
- 2 -
955-56 (7th Cir. 2003) (finding competency evaluation not warranted
for defendant who articulated beliefs of Moorish nation). Thus,
Burris is not entitled to relief on this claim.
Finally, counsel raises as a potential issue the
sufficiency of the evidence. Our review of the trial transcript
leads us to conclude that the evidence was sufficient to convict.
See United States v. Smith, 451 F.3d 209, 216 (4th Cir.)
(discussing standard of review for denial of motion filed under
Fed. R. Crim. P. 29), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 197 (2006); see also
United States v. Moye, 454 F.3d 390, 395 (4th Cir.) (discussing
elements of § 922(g)(1) offense), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 452(2006).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record for any meritorious issues and have found none.
Accordingly, we affirm Burris’ 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
- 3 -
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 4 -