# United States v. Levar Brown

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · March 22, 2013 · 514 F. App'x 373

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/856013

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Levar Vincent BROWN, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** March 22, 2013
- **Citations:** 514 F. App'x 373
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Davis, Keenan, Diaz
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/856013

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/856013. Public record. Not legal advice.