UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4477
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JEFFREY BINGLEY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District
Judge. (CR-02-123)
Submitted: November 6, 2003 Decided: November 17, 2003
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William F. Nettles, IV, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. Miller Williams Shealy,
Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Jeffrey Bingley pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with
intent to distribute cocaine base, 21 U.S.C. § 846(a)(2000).
Bingley’s counsel has a filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising one possible sentencing
issue on appeal and asking this court to review the guilty plea
hearing, but stating that, in his view, there are no meritorious
issues for appeal. Bingley was informed of his right to file a pro
se supplemental brief but has failed to do so.
Bingley was sentenced as a career offender under U.S.
Sentencing Guideline Manual § 4B1.1 (2002) based on three previous
rug felonies delineated in the Presentence Report. Bingley did not
object to the Presentence Report’s findings at the sentencing
hearing, and does not point out error on appeal. We conclude the
district court did not commit clear error in its application of the
career offender provisions. Our review of the transcript of the
plea proceeding reveals that the district court fully complied with
the requirements of Rule 11 in accepting Bingley’s guilty plea.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm Bingley’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
2
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