UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4284
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
BOBBY LEON JOHNSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Lacy H. Thornburg,
District Judge. (CR-01-210)
Submitted: September 27, 2005 Decided: September 29, 2005
Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randolph M. Lee, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Robert
James Conrad, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Jennifer
Marie Hoefling, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Bobby Leon Johnson appeals the district court’s judgment
sentencing him to 300 months in prison following his guilty plea to
nine counts of an eleven-count indictment for bank robbery in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 922(g)(1), 924(c), 1951, 1956(h),
and 2113 (2000). In his appeal, filed pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), counsel for Johnson asserts there
are no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Although concluding that
such allegations lack merit, counsel asserts that Johnson’s plea
was not knowing and voluntary. Johnson has been informed of his
right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so.
Because our review of the record discloses no reversible error, we
affirm Johnson’s conviction and sentence.
Johnson was advised of the nature of the charges 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, Johnson’s appellate
waiver forecloses any argument that his sentence, issued under the
mandatory guidelines system, was unconstitutional. See United
States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162 (4th Cir. 2005).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm Johnson’s convictions and sentence.
This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of
- 2 -
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 -