United States v. Mason , 142 F. App'x 694 ( 2005 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4544
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
EDWIN LOWELL MASON, a/k/a E. Lowell Mason,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees,
District Judge. (CR-04-40)
Submitted: June 24, 2005 Decided: July 29, 2005
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Noell P. Tin, Carole Melissa Owen, TIN GREENE BUSHNAQ & OWEN,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. David Alan Brown, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Edwin Lowell Mason appeals the district court’s order
sentencing him to six months’ imprisonment following his guilty
plea to criminal contempt of court. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 401, 402
(2000). In his appeal, filed pursuant to Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), counsel for Mason asserts there are no
non-frivolous issues for appeal. The court’s repeated attempts to
inform Mason of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief were
unsuccessful.
Upon our review of the record, we likewise find no
meritorious issues warranting review. Mason was advised of the
nature of the charge, the potential punishment, and the rights he
was waiving by entering a plea of guilty, and he knowingly and
intelligently waived those rights and pled guilty. The sentence
imposed by the district court was within the range established by
statute, 18 U.S.C. § 402, and the Sentencing Guidelines were not
applicable. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual, § 1B1.9 (2003).
In short, there is no basis for questioning Mason’s conviction or
sentence. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court.
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
- 2 -
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 contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -