UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4163
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JOSEPH BERNARD BAYLOR,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Senior District
Judge. (CR-02-330)
Submitted: October 20, 2003 Decided: November 21, 2003
Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William F. Nettles, IV, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. Rose Mary Parham,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Joseph Bernard Baylor pled guilty to possession of a firearm
by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1),
924(e) (2000). The district court sentenced him to 180 months in
prison. Baylor’s counsel 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. However, he
raises the issues of whether the magistrate judge complied with
Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure in accepting
Baylor’s guilty plea, and whether the district court erred in
sentencing Baylor as an armed career criminal pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(e). Although notified of his right to do so, Baylor has not
filed a pro se supplemental brief. Finding no reversible error, we
affirm.
After reviewing the transcript of the plea proceeding, we
conclude that the magistrate judge fully complied with the
requirements of Rule 11 in accepting Baylor’s guilty plea. Turning
to the sentencing issue, we find that the district court’s
determination that the challenged prior conviction resulted from a
counseled plea was not clearly erroneous. See United States v.
Daughtrey, 874 F.2d 213, 217 (4th Cir. 1989) (standard of review
for factual determinations under the Sentencing Guidelines is
clearly erroneous). Accordingly, the district court properly
sentenced Baylor as an armed career criminal.
2
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm Baylor’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 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