United States v. Norris , 202 F. App'x 602 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4252
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JOSHUA LINCOLN NORRIS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(4:05-cr-00079-TLW-2)
Submitted: September 28, 2006 Decided: October 5, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William F. Nettles, IV, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. Rose Mary Parham,
Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Joshua Lincoln Norris pled guilty to two counts of
violation of the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951(a)(1), (2) (2000).
The district court sentenced Norris to 185 months’ imprisonment on
each count, to be served concurrently, three years of supervised
release, and ordered payment of restitution in the amount of $130
and a $200 statutory assessment.* Norris’ 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 complied with the
requirements of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting Norris’ plea, and
challenging the reliance on a South Carolina burglary, third
degree, conviction as a predicate offense supporting sentencing as
a career offender. Norris was given an opportunity to file a
supplemental pro se brief, but has failed to do so.
Norris did not move in the district court to withdraw his
guilty plea, therefore his challenge to the adequacy of the Rule 11
hearing is reviewed for plain error. See United States v.
Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). We have carefully
reviewed the transcript of the Rule 11 hearing and find no plain
error in the district court’s acceptance of Norris’ guilty plea.
See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 119-20 (4th Cir. 1991).
*
The probation officer calculated a sentencing guideline range
for Norris of 151 to 188 months’ imprisonment founded on a total
offense level of 29 and a criminal history category of VI.
- 2 -
In addition, we find no error in the district court’s
reliance on the burglary, third degree, conviction for determining
career offender status, given that the indictment reflects that the
subject building was a dwelling, and Norris did not object to the
accuracy of the indictment. See United States v. Thompson, 421
F.3d 278, 285 (4th Cir. 2005).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm Norris’ 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 -