United States v. Hill

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4132
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROOSEVELT HILL, a/k/a Ro,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney,
District Judge. (3:06-cr-00390-FDW-1)
Submitted: March 17, 2009 Decided: March 19, 2009
Before TRAXLER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John J. Nickerson, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Roosevelt Hill pled guilty to two counts of possession
of at least five grams of crack cocaine, in violation of 21
U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) (2006) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (2006)
(Counts One and Four); and one count of possession of a firearm
in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 924(c) (2006) (Count Two). After application of a
career offender enhancement, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
§ 4B1.1 (2006), to which Hill admitted he was subject, the
Guidelines provided for an offense level 31 and a criminal
history category VI, with an attendant sentencing range of 262
to 327 months. The district court sentenced Hill to 262 months’
imprisonment. Hill’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. Hill was advised of his
right to file a pro se brief, but has failed to do so.
Our review of the record reveals that the district
court conducted a thorough Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 colloquy and
properly determined that Hill’s plea, including his waiver of
appellate review of his conviction and sentence, was knowing and
voluntary. To the extent any conviction or sentencing issue
exists outside Hill’s appellate waiver, we find no error by the
district court.
2
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm Hill’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