United States v. Sheffield ( 2010 )

  •                               UNPUBLISHED
                      UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                          FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
                                  No. 08-4876
                    Plaintiff - Appellee,
                    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Florence.   Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
    Submitted:   March 30, 2010                 Decided:   April 2, 2010
    Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    John W. Locklair, III, LOCKLAIR LAW FIRM, LLC, Surfside Beach,
    South Carolina, for Appellant. Rose Mary Sheppard Parham,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
                   Donnie Sheffield appeals from the 120-month sentence
    imposed after he was found guilty of possession of a firearm by
    a   convicted     felon,       in    violation        of       18    U.S.C.        §§ 922(g)(1),
    924(a)(2)      (2006).        Sheffield’s           counsel         has   filed         a    brief    in
    accordance      with     Anders      v.    California,              
    386 U.S. 738
    stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but
    raising       whether        the     district         court          erred         by        enhancing
    Sheffield’s       sentence          by    applying         a        Sentencing              Guidelines
    cross-reference based on facts that were not proven beyond a
    reasonable doubt.             Sheffield has filed a pro se supplemental
    brief, and the Government declined to file a brief.                                         Finding no
    error, we affirm.
                   Sheffield received sentence enhancement based on facts
    that    were    not     stipulated        to    or    found          by   a    jury          beyond   a
    reasonable      doubt.        Counsel      raises      the      issue         of    whether       this
    violated the Sixth Amendment in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey,
    530 U.S. 466
    ,    490    (2000).          We    have      held       that     the        district
    court’s application of sentencing enhancements based on facts
    found by a preponderance of the evidence does not violate the
    Sixth Amendment.             See United States v. Hammond, 
    286 F.3d 189
    192 (4th Cir. 2002).
                   We have reviewed the claims Sheffield raises in his
    pro supplemental brief objecting to Agent Glover’s testimony,
    challenging a search of his home, objecting to introduction of
    evidence    regarding        domestic         violence,          objecting        to    sentencing
    enhancements, and dissatisfaction with counsel, and find them to
    be    without    merit.          In    accordance         with        Anders,     we    have   also
    reviewed       the    entire      record      in     this    case       and     have     found    no
    meritorious issues for appeal.                      We therefore affirm Sheffield’s
    conviction       and    sentence.             This       court     requires       that     counsel
    inform    Sheffield,        in    writing,          of    the     right      to    petition      the
    Supreme    Court       of   the    United       States       for       further     review.        If
    Sheffield       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 Sheffield.
                    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

Document Info

DocketNumber: 08-4876

Filed Date: 4/2/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/21/2014