UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4712
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
SHAPRIA CHAPMAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Malcolm J. Howard,
District Judge. (CR-03-20-HO)
Submitted: April 15, 2004 Decided: April 20, 2004
Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randolph M. Lee, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne
Margaret Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Shapria Chapman pled guilty to one count of
being a felon in possession of a firearm and one count of
possessing a firearm with an obliterated serial number, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 922(k) and 924 (2000). He was
sentenced to thirty months in prison.
Chapman’s appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) raising two issues
regarding Chapman’s sentence: (1) whether the district court
properly increased his offense level by four because of the number
of firearms involved in Chapman’s conduct; and (2) whether the
district court erroneously enhanced Chapman’s offense level by two
for being a manager of criminal conduct. The Government has
elected not to file a brief. Chapman was notified of his right to
file a pro se supplemental brief and has not done so.
We have independently reviewed the entire record in this
case, including the issues raised by counsel, and, in accordance
with Anders, have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm Chapman’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
- 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 -