United States v. Levar Brown , 514 F. App'x 373 ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4678
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LEVAR VINCENT BROWN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. G. Steven Agee, Circuit
Judge, sitting by designation; Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge.
(7:12-cr-00026-SGW-1)
Submitted: February 22, 2013 Decided: March 22, 2013
Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Wade T. Anderson, FRITH ANDERSON & PEAKE, P.C., Roanoke,
Virginia, for Appellant. Thomas T. Cullen, Assistant United
States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Levar Vincent Brown appeals his conviction and 120-
month armed career criminal sentence imposed following his
guilty plea to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006). On appeal, Brown’s
counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious grounds for
appeal but questioning whether Brown’s guilty plea was knowing
and voluntary. Brown was advised of his right to file a pro se
supplemental brief but did not file one. Finding no error, we
affirm.
The sole issue raised in the Anders brief is whether
Brown’s guilty plea was knowing and voluntary. Our review of
the plea hearing reveals that the district court substantially
complied with Rule 11 in conducting the plea colloquy, and
committed no error warranting correction on plain error review.
See United States v. General, 278 F.3d 389, 393 (4th Cir. 2002)
(providing standard of review); United States v. Olano, 507 U.S.
725, 732 (1993) (detailing plain error standard). Thus, the
district court did not err in finding Brown’s guilty plea
knowing and voluntary.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court
2
requires that counsel inform Brown, in writing, of his right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Brown 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
Brown. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal conclusions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
3