United States v. Cockrell

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4337
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CHEREE ANN COCKRELL, a/k/a, Cheree Ann Helms,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Senior
District Judge. (1:05-cr-00281-WLO)
Submitted: October 31, 2006 Decided: November 3, 2006
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis Carr Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, William S.
Trivette, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States
Attorney, Robert Albert Jamison Lang, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Cheree Ann Cockrell pled guilty without a plea agreement
to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000). The district court sentenced Cockrell
as an armed career criminal pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1)
(2000), which carries a statutory mandatory minimum sentence of
fifteen years’ imprisonment. Cockrell received the minimum 180
months’ imprisonment.
On appeal, Cockrell’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant
to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there
exist no meritorious issues for appeal but contending that the
district court imposed an unreasonable sentence because Cockrell
has been rehabilitated, and no further punishment is necessary.*
However, as noted by both the district court and Cockrell’s
counsel, the term of imprisonment imposed in this case is the
mandatory minimum sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1).
Because the district court could not have given a lower sentence
under the terms of the statute, the sentence is not unreasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm Cockrell’s conviction and sentence. This court
requires counsel inform his client, in writing, of her right to
*
Although notified of her right to do so, Cockrell has not
submitted a pro se supplemental brief.
- 2 -
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 -