United States v. Supreme

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-4435
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
LORD JUSTICE SUPREME, a/k/a John Earl Graham,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (CR-00-506)
Submitted: December 7, 2001 Decided: December 19, 2001
Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William F. Nettles, IV, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
Florence, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Lord Justice Supreme appeals from his conviction and sentence
to seventy months in prison and three years of supervised release
following his guilty plea to one count of making a false statement
in connection with the attempted purchase of a firearm in violation
of 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 922(a)(6), 924(a)(2) (West 2000). Supreme’s at-
torney filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1976), raising the issue of compliance with Fed. R. Crim.
P. 11, but stating that, in his view, there are no meritorious
issues for appeal. Supreme filed a supplemental pro se brief
arguing he did not intend to violate the law and that a mental
defect prevented him from understanding the judicial process.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record
and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore
affirm Supreme’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 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 dis-
pense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
2
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3