Remanded by Supreme Court, January 24, 2005
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4720
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CECIL LAMONT STOKES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (CR-03-95)
Submitted: March 11, 2004 Decided: March 17, 2004
Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, William S. Trivette,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Angela Hewlett Miller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Cecil Lamont Stokes pled guilty pursuant to a
written plea agreement to one count of interference with commerce
and one count of brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a
crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951 and
924(c)(1)(A)(ii)(2000). The district court sentenced Stokes to 162
months in prison. Stokes timely appealed.
Stokes’s appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising one issue:
whether the district court abused its discretion in sentencing
Stokes within the appropriate sentencing guidelines range. Stokes
has filed a pro se supplemental brief arguing that the district
court improperly enhanced his sentence and that the Government had
no jurisdiction over his case. The Government has elected not to
file a brief.
We have reviewed the arguments presented by Anders
counsel and by Stokes and conclude they are without merit.
Additionally, we have independently reviewed the entire record in
this case in accordance with Anders and have found no meritorious
issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Stokes’s conviction and
sentence. 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.
- 2 -
We deny counsel’s motion to withdraw at this time. This
court requires that Anders 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,
counsel may then move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on the client.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -