UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4161
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
WILLIE LEE HERRIOTT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(CR-02-30)
Submitted: September 29, 2003 Decided: October 17, 2003
Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William F. Nettles, IV, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. Alfred William Walker
Bethea, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Willie Lee Herriott pled guilty to possession with intent to
distribute of over 500 grams of cocaine and was sentenced to 225
months imprisonment. Herriott’s attorney has filed a brief in
accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating
that, in his view, there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but
raising the issues as to whether the district court complied with
the requirements of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting Herriott’s
guilty plea, and whether the district court improperly sentenced
Herriott as a career offender under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines
Manual § 4B1.1 (2001). Herriott has filed a pro se supplemental
brief.
Following a de novo review of the record, we find that the
district court complied with all the mandates of Rule 11 in
accepting Herriott’s guilty plea. See United States v. Goins, 51
F.3d 400, 402 (4th Cir. 1995) (providing standard); Fed. R. Crim.
P. 11. We also find that the district court did not commit
reversible error in sentencing Herriott as a career offender under
USSG § 4B1.1. He was over eighteen years old when he committed the
instant felony offense, which involved a controlled substance, and
he had two qualifying prior felony convictions. USSG § 4B1.1.
In accordance with the requirements of Anders, we have
reviewed the record for potential error and have found none. We
further find no merit to the claims raised in Herriott’s pro se
2
supplemental brief. Therefore, we affirm Herriott’s conviction and
sentence. 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 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 in the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3