United States v. Roberts

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4861
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JAMES LOUIS ROBERTS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney,
District Judge. (3:05-cr-00275)
Submitted: March 21, 2007 Decided: April 17, 2007
Before MICHAEL, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Scott Gsell, LAW OFFICE OF SCOTT GSELL, Charlotte, North Carolina,
for Appellant. David Alan Brown, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James Louis Roberts pled guilty to one count of
possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and one count of possession of a stolen
vehicle, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3231, and the district court
sentenced him to forty-one months in prison. Roberts’s counsel has
filed in this court a brief in accordance with Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he raises one issue at
Roberts’s request, but states that, in his view, there are no
meritorious issues for appeal. Specifically, Roberts’s counsel
argues that Roberts’s two convictions constituted one course of
conduct pursuant to USSG § 3D1.2(d) and therefore the district
court should have considered them as one group when sentencing him
rather than enhancing his sentence with a multiple count adjustment
pursuant to USSG § 3D1.4. Roberts was informed of his right to
file a pro se supplemental brief, but he declined to do so.
We conclude that the district court properly denied
Roberts’s request to group his offenses for sentencing under USSG
§ 3D1.2(d) because very few of the firearms were stolen and none of
the firearms were found in the stolen vehicle. Moreover, the
offenses had different victims and the offenses were not otherwise
related.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
- 2 -
therefore affirm Roberts’s convictions and sentence. This court
requires that counsel inform Roberts, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review.
If Roberts 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 Roberts.
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 -