UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4384
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DOUGLAS ALLEN COX,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(CR-04-794)
Submitted: January 19, 2006 Decided: January 24, 2006
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael A. Meetze, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Florence,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Jonathan Scott Gasser, Acting
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Douglas Allen Cox appeals his conviction and sentence for
one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2) (2000). Cox’s
attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), stating that, in his opinion, there are no
meritorious issues for appeal. Although concluding that such
allegations lacked merit, counsel asserts that the district court
did not fully comply with Rule 11 in accepting Cox’s guilty plea.
Counsel also asserts that Cox’s sentence was unreasonable.
Although Cox was notified of his right to file a supplemental pro
se brief, and even requested an extension, he did not do so.
Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
In the Anders brief, counsel asserts that the district
court erred in failing to notify Cox of the court’s obligation to
impose a special assessment. We find no evidence that this error
affected Cox’s decision to plead guilty and hence it did not affect
his substantial rights. See United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d
517, 532 (4th Cir. 2002). Cox acknowledged that he knew and
understood all of his rights prior to pleading guilty.
Counsel also questions the reasonableness of Cox’s
sentence in light of two enhancements imposed in calculating his
guideline range. We first find that the court did not clearly err
in determining that Cox possessed the firearm in connection with
- 2 -
another felony. Both his victim and her eight-year old daughter
confirmed that he used the firearm to threaten the victim. We
further find that the court did not clearly err in applying the
enhancement for obstruction of justice. Cox’s victim and her
daughter stated that Cox contacted them on several occasions prior
to the trial to convince the victim to change her testimony about
who owned the gun.
Applying both the four-level enhancement for possession
of a firearm in connection with another felony, U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(b)(5), and the two-level enhancement for
obstruction of justice, U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, yielded a guideline range
of 37 to 46 months. This Court in United States v. White, 405 F.3d
208, 216 (4th Cir. 2005), stated that it would affirm a sentence
imposed after Booker “as long as it is within the statutorily
prescribed range and is reasonable.” Cox’s forty-month sentence
fits these criteria.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm Cox’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
- 3 -
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
- 4 -