The opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-5112
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ISSAC JERMAINE BROWN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (8:06-cr-00246)
Submitted: August 30, 2007 Decided: September 5, 2007
Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Andrew Mackenzie, BARRETT MACKENZIE, L.L.C., Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellant. Maxwell Barnes Cauthen, III, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Issac Jermaine Brown appeals his conviction following his
guilty plea to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. His
attorney filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967). Brown’s Anders brief raises the issue of whether his
plea was knowing and voluntary. Brown filed a supplemental pro se
brief raising the issues of whether the Armed Career Criminal Act
was applied in error to his sentence and whether counsel was
ineffective for allegedly failing to examine Brown’s prior
conviction file. The Government has declined to file a responding
brief. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
Brown suggests that his guilty plea was not knowing and
voluntary. Brown never sought to withdraw his guilty plea, and we
therefore review his allegations for plain error. See United
States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525-26 (4th Cir. 2002). The
district court ensured that Brown fully understood the significance
of his guilty plea and that the plea was knowing and voluntary.
The district court satisfactorily complied with its Fed. R. Crim.
P. 11 obligations, and we therefore reject Brown’s challenge to the
integrity of his guilty plea.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal, including those advanced by Brown in his supplemental pro
se brief. We therefore affirm Brown’s conviction and sentence.
- 2 -
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 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 -