United States v. James Cothran

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-5236
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JAMES DOUGLAS COTHRAN,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (1:10-cr-00009-MR-1)
Submitted: July 8, 2011 Decided: July 29, 2011
Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eric C. Bohnet, ERIC C. BOHNET, ATTORNEY AT LAW, Indianapolis,
Indiana, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
James Douglas Cothran appeals the district court’s
151-month sentence imposed following his conviction for bank
robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) (2006). Cothran’s
counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious grounds for
appeal but questioning whether the district court erred in
sentencing Cothran as a career offender. Cothran was advised of
his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but did not file
one. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
The sole issue raised in the Anders brief is whether
the district court erred in sentencing Cothran as a career
offender. To qualify as a career offender: (1) the defendant
must have been at least eighteen years old at the time of the
offense of conviction; (2) the offense of conviction must have
been a felony crime of violence or controlled substance offense;
and (3) the defendant must have at least two prior felony
convictions for crimes of violence or controlled substance
offenses. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (USSG) § 4B1.1(a)
(2010).
The term “two prior felony convictions” means (1) the
defendant committed the instant offense of conviction
subsequent to sustaining at least two felony
convictions of either a crime of violence or a
controlled substance offense . . . , and (2) the
sentences for at least two of the aforementioned
2
felony convictions are counted separately under the
provisions of § 4A1.1(a), (b), or (c).
USSG § 4B1.2(c). “[P]rior sentences are counted separately
unless (A) the sentences resulted from offenses contained in the
same charging instrument; or (B) the sentences were imposed on
the same day.” USSG § 4A1.2(a)(2). Upon de novo review, we
conclude that the district court properly sentenced Cothran as a
career offender. See United States v. Farrior, 535 F.3d 210,
223 (4th Cir. 2008) (stating standard of review).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court
requires that counsel inform Cothran, in writing, of his right
to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Cothran requests that a petition be filed, but
counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,
counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Cothran. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal conclusions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3