UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4198
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
WILLIAM FLOYD FORD, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (CR-02-367)
Submitted: September 25, 2003 Decided: March 25, 2004
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Hervery B. O. Young, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Elizabeth Jean Howard, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Appellant William Floyd Ford, Jr., was convicted by a
jury of attempted robbery of a federally insured bank, 18 U.S.C. §
2113(a) and for being a felon in possession of a handgun, 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(1). At trial, Ford’s motion for judgment of acquittal
under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29 was denied after the
Government presented its case. Ford’s renewed motion for judgment
of acquittal at the close of trial was also denied by the district
court. The district court sentenced Ford to seventy-eight months’
imprisonment, and Ford timely appealed.
Ford’s appellate counsel has filed an Anders* brief
raising one issue: whether the Rule 29 motion was properly denied.
Ford filed a supplemental pro se brief in which he alleges the
following points of error: (1) the magistrate judge had no
constitutional or statutory authority to issue Ford’s arrest
warrant; (2) the arrest warrant was defective; (3) the criminal
complaint was defective; (4) the prosecutor’s closing argument was
improper because it bolstered the credibility of witnesses; (5) the
in-court identification of Ford was flawed; and (6) the jury charge
was defective. Ford has moved in this court for leave to file an
amended pro se brief to add one more substantive claim of
reversible error, namely, that the government did not have
*
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
- 2 -
jurisdiction over his weapons possession offense. We grant the
motion. The matter is now ripe for Anders review by this court.
We have reviewed the testimony adduced at trial and
conclude the district court properly denied Ford’s Rule 29 motions.
When the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the
Government, a reasonable jury could readily conclude that Ford
committed both of the crimes charged in the indictment. United
States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862 (4th Cir. 1996). We further
conclude from the record that the additional issues asserted by
Ford in his pro se briefs are without merit.
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 Ford’s convictions 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 -