UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4624
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
WARREN MITCHELL COOPER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(CR-02-1018)
Submitted: January 30, 2004 Decided: June 22, 2004
Before WIDENER, MOTZ, and KING, 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Warren Mitchell Cooper pleaded guilty to being a felon in
possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and
924(e) (2000). Cooper was sentenced as an armed career offender to
190 months of imprisonment, to be followed by five years of
supervised release.
Cooper’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there were no
meritorious grounds for appeal but raising two potential issues:
(1) whether the magistrate judge fully complied with Fed. R. Crim.
P. 11 before entering Cooper’s guilty plea, and (2) whether the
district court erred in enhancing Cooper’s sentence as an armed
career offender by counting his two prior convictions for failing
to stop for a blue light as crimes of violence. Cooper was advised
of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but declined to
do so.
We have reviewed the record and conclude that the
magistrate judge fully complied with the requirements set forth in
Rule 11 before entering Cooper’s guilty plea. Further, we have
recently held that a prior conviction for failing to stop for a
blue light is a violent felony for purposes of the armed career
offender enhancement. United States v. James, 337 F.3d 387, 390-91
(4th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, ___ S. Ct. ___, No. 03-7639, 2004 WL
- 2 -
47340 (Jan. 12, 2004). Therefore, counsel’s arguments are without
merit.
In accordance with the requirements of Anders, we have
reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no
meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm Cooper’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 -