United States v. Waddell , 18 F. App'x 155 ( 2001 )


Menu:
  •                            UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,              
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.                               No. 01-4071
    ROBERT WADDELL, JR.,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham.
    William L. Osteen, District Judge.
    (CR-00-244, CR-00-245, CR-00-246, CR-00-247, CR-00-416)
    Submitted: July 24, 2001
    Decided: September 10, 2001
    Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    COUNSEL
    Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Car-
    olina, for Appellant. Benjamin H. White, Jr., United States Attorney,
    Paul A. Weinman, Assistant United States Attorney, Winston-Salem,
    North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
    Local Rule 36(c).
    2                        UNITED STATES v. WADDELL
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    Robert Waddell, Jr., was convicted pursuant to his guilty pleas of
    five counts of bank robbery. Waddell’s attorney has filed a brief in
    accordance with Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967), alleging
    that the district court erred by sentencing Waddell as a career offender
    pursuant to USSG § 4B1.1.1 Although advised of his right to do so,
    Waddell did not file a pro se supplemental brief. Finding no error, we
    affirm.
    The basic facts of this case are undisputed. Waddell robbed five
    banks in North and South Carolina between March 7 and June 7,
    2000. In each case, Waddell presented a note demanding money and
    stating that he had a gun. No firearm was observed during any of the
    robberies.
    Because Waddell did not object to the district court’s sentencing
    calculation at trial, we review its decision for plain error and find
    none. United States v. Olano, 
    507 U.S. 725
    , 733-36 (1993). The
    Guidelines provide that:
    A defendant is a career offender if (1) the defendant was
    at least eighteen years old at the time the defendant commit-
    ted the instant offense of conviction, (2) the instant offense
    of conviction is a felony that is either a crime of violence
    or a controlled substance offense, and (3) the defendant has
    at least two prior felony convictions of either a crime of vio-
    lence or a controlled substance offense.
    USSG § 4B1.1.
    The record here clearly shows that Waddell satisfies all three
    criteria. First, he was forty-one years old at the time of the robberies.
    Second, unarmed bank robbery is a felony crime of violence for pur-
    poses of USSG § 4B1.1. United States v. Davis, 
    915 F.2d 132
     (4th
    1
    U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (2000).
    UNITED STATES v. WADDELL                       3
    Cir. 1990). Finally, Waddell’s 1989 state convictions for assault on
    a female qualify as prior felony convictions for a crime of violence
    under the Guidelines.2 United States v. Johnson, 
    114 F.3d 435
    , 444-
    45 (4th Cir. 1997).
    We have examined the entire record in this case in accordance with
    the requirements of Anders and find no meritorious issues for appeal.
    The 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. Coun-
    sel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client.
    We therefore affirm Waddell’s sentence. Counsel’s current motion
    to withdraw is denied. 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
    2
    Waddell was thirty-one years old at the time of these offenses.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 01-4071

Citation Numbers: 18 F. App'x 155

Judges: Luttig, Niemeyer, Per Curiam, Wilkins

Filed Date: 9/10/2001

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/6/2023