The opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4974
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
GERALD BROWN,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (6:07-cr-01353-HMH-1)
Submitted: March 24, 2009 Decided: April 6, 2009
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Andrew Mackenzie, BARRETT & MACKENZIE, LLC, Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellant. Elizabeth Jean Howard, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Gerald Brown was convicted after a jury trial of one
count of being a felon in possession of firearm and ammunition,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006), and one count of
being a felon in possession of body armor, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 931(a) (2006). The district court sentenced Brown
to 120 months’ imprisonment on the firearm and ammunition count
and to a concurrent term of 36 months’ imprisonment on the body
armor count. Brown’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that this
appeal is wholly frivolous and lacking in any meritorious
issues. Brown was informed of his right to file a pro se
supplemental brief, but he has declined to do so.
Although asserting that the appeal is without merit,
counsel questions whether the district court erred by
instructing Brown’s trial counsel to call a witness Brown wished
to call, but trial counsel did not. Without finding that an
error in fact occurred, we conclude that any error was invited
by Brown himself and cannot now form the basis for granting
relief on appeal. See United States v. Herrera, 23 F.3d 74, 75
(4th Cir. 1994). Moreover, our review of the record leads us to
conclude that even in the absence of any invited error, the
district court’s instruction did not amount to interference with
the attorney-client relationship, in violation of the Sixth
2
Amendment. See Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545, 558 (1977);
United States v. Chavez, 902 F.2d 259, 266 (4th Cir. 1990).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
review. Finding no error, we affirm the district court’s
judgment. This court requires counsel to inform Brown, in
writing, of the 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 of the motion was served on Brown. 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