United States v. Dukes , 21 F. App'x 185 ( 2001 )


Menu:
  •                           UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,              
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.                                No. 00-4866
    JAMES DUKES, JR., a/k/a Bubba,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken.
    Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge.
    (CR-00-258)
    Submitted: October 17, 2001
    Decided: October 30, 2001
    Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    COUNSEL
    E. T. Moore, Jr., MOORE LAW FIRM, Barnwell, South Carolina, for
    Appellant. Jane Barrett Taylor, 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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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).
    2                       UNITED STATES v. DUKES
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    James Dukes, Jr., appeals his conviction and sentence of sixty
    months imprisonment for possession with intent to distribute cocaine
    base, in violation of 
    21 U.S.C.A. § 841
    (a)(1) (West 1999). Dukes’
    counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967), addressing whether the district court fully complied with
    Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting Dukes’ guilty plea, and whether the
    imposition of a sixty-month statutory mandatory minimum sentence
    violated Apprendi v. New Jersey, 
    530 U.S. 466
     (2000), but stating that
    in his opinion there were no meritorious issues for appeal. Although
    advised of his right to do so, Dukes has not filed a pro se supplemen-
    tal brief.
    We have reviewed the record and find that the district court com-
    plied with all the mandates of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting Dukes’
    guilty plea. See United States v. Goins, 
    51 F.3d 400
    , 402 (4th Cir.
    1995) (providing standard). We further find Dukes’ sixty-month sen-
    tence did not violate Apprendi. See United States v. Angle, 
    254 F.3d 514
    , 518 (4th Cir. 2001) (en banc), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 
    2001 WL 995333
     (U.S. Oct. 1, 2001) (No. 01-5838); United States v. Pratt,
    
    239 F.3d 640
    , 647 (4th Cir. 2001).
    As required by Anders, we have examined the entire record and
    find no other meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm
    Dukes’ 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 conten-
    tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
    argument would not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 00-4866

Citation Numbers: 21 F. App'x 185

Judges: Motz, Per Curiam, Widener, Williams

Filed Date: 10/30/2001

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/6/2023