United States v. Jimmy Lee White, Jr. , 481 F. App'x 61 ( 2012 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4214
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JIMMY LEE WHITE, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(4:11-cr-02164-RBH-1)
Submitted: August 2, 2012 Decided: August 8, 2012
Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William F. Nettles, IV, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. Arthur Bradley Parham,
Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jimmy Lee White, Jr., appeals his conviction for being
a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 922(g), 924(e) (2006), and his sentence of 180 months’
imprisonment. White’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there
are no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning whether the
indictment was sufficient. White was notified of his right to
file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. The
Government has likewise elected not to file a brief. We affirm.
Because White did not move to withdraw his guilty
plea, the Rule 11 plea colloquy is reviewed for plain error.
United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517 (4th Cir. 2002). Our
review of the record leads us to conclude that the district
court complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting White’s
plea. Because White’s plea was knowing and voluntary and the
district court committed no procedural error in accepting the
plea, we affirm White’s conviction.
White’s sentence is reviewed for reasonableness,
applying the abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). This requires consideration of
both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of the
sentence. Id.; United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575 (4th
Cir. 2010). We determine whether the district court correctly
2
calculated the advisory Guidelines range, whether the court
considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) sentencing factors,
analyzed the arguments presented by the parties, and
sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Lynn, 592 F.3d at
575-76; United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir.
2009). If the sentence is free of significant procedural error,
we review the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Lynn,
592 F.3d at 575; United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th
Cir. 2007). We conclude that White’s sentencing hearing was
free of procedural error and that his sentence, the mandatory
minimum authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), is substantively
reasonable.
To the extent that counsel challenges the indictment,
such challenge fails. The indictment alleged a violation of 18
U.S.C. § 924(e), and White admitted the three predicate offenses
used to establish his designation as an armed career criminal.
Because White admitted the prior offenses and their
qualification under § 924(e), there was no impermissible finding
of fact by the district court. See, e.g., United States v.
Alston, 611 F.3d 219, 226 (4th Cir. 2010); Almendarez-Torres v.
United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
and found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm
White’s conviction and sentence. This court requires counsel to
3
inform White, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme
Court of the United States for further review. If White
requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that
such a petition would be frivolous, counsel may move in this
court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s
motion must state that a copy thereof was served on White. 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
4