UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4935
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
FREEMAN L. HANKINS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (CR-02-132)
Submitted: August 18, 2005 Decided: August 23, 2005
Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Lee Davis, III, Lumberton, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Anne Margaret Hayes, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Freeman Leroy Hankins appeals the district court order
sentencing him to thirty-seven months in prison following his
guilty plea to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000). In his appeal, filed
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), counsel for
Hankins asserts there are no non-frivolous issues for appeal.
Hankins was notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental
brief, but has not filed a brief. Because our review of the record
discloses no reversible error, we affirm Hankins’ conviction and
sentence.
Hankins was advised of the nature of the charge against
him, the potential punishment, and the rights he was waiving by
entering a plea of guilty, and he knowingly and intelligently
waived those rights and pled guilty. Moreover, the sentence
imposed by the district court was within the guidelines range
established by the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (2002). There
were no judicial enhancements to Hankins’ sentence, thus United
States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), is not implicated.
Finally, we find that the district court did not plainly err in
treating the guidelines as mandatory since there is no evidence of
prejudice as required under United States v. White, 405 F.3d 208,
223 (4th Cir. 2005).
- 2 -
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We, therefore, affirm Hankins’ 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 decision process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -