UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4057
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
LAMONT HENDERSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (CR-03-614)
Submitted: June 30, 2005 Decided: January 11, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Melissa J. Kimbrough, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. J.
Strom Thurmond, Jr., United States Attorney, A. Lance Crick,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Lamont Henderson was convicted by a jury of being a felon
in possession of firearms, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1),
924(a)(2) (2000). He was sentenced to 118 months of imprisonment.
On appeal, he maintains that he did not knowingly and intelligently
waive his right to counsel.* We affirm.
The Sixth Amendment guarantees not only the right to be
represented by counsel but the right to self-representation.
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 819 (1975). The decision to
represent oneself must be knowing and intelligent. Id. at 835.
Courts must entertain every reasonable presumption against waiver
of counsel. Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387, 404 (1977). The
record must show that the waiver was voluntary, knowing, and
intelligent. United States v. Gallop, 838 F.2d 105, 110 (4th Cir.
1988). Determination of a waiver of the right to counsel is a
question of law to be reviewed de novo. United States v.
Singleton, 107 F.3d 1091, 1097 n.3 (4th Cir. 1997). We have
reviewed the materials submitted by the parties and conclude that
the district court adequately informed Henderson of the dangers of
self-representation and sufficiently ensured that his waiver of
counsel was knowing and voluntary.
*
Although in his opening brief Henderson argued that his
sentence violated his Sixth Amendment rights under Blakely v.
Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), he now concedes in a supplemental
brief that his sentence does not violate his Sixth Amendment rights
under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 320 (2005).
- 2 -
Accordingly, we affirm Henderson’s conviction and
sentence. 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 -