UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4614
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
SHAWN CHRISTOPHER FERGUSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Senior District
Judge. (CR-02-1279)
Submitted: July 29, 2004 Decided: August 3, 2004
Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Henry M. Anderson, Jr., ANDERSON LAW FIRM, P.A., Florence, South
Carolina, for Appellant. James Strom Thurmond, Jr., United States
Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina; 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Shawn Christopher Ferguson pled guilty to being a felon
in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)
(2000), and was sentenced as an armed career criminal to 180 months
imprisonment. Ferguson’s attorney has filed a brief in accordance
with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising one issue,
but stating that he finds no meritorious grounds for appeal.
Although informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief,
Ferguson has not done so.
Counsel questions whether the magistrate judge properly
complied with the requirements of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 when
accepting Ferguson’s guilty plea. Because Ferguson failed to object
or move to withdraw his guilty plea, this court reviews his plea
hearing for plain error. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517,
524-27 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 899 (2002). We have
reviewed the plea proceedings and conclude that the magistrate
judge thoroughly complied with the requirements of Rule 11.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. Therefore, we affirm Ferguson’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 petition would be frivolous, then
- 2 -
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 -