UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4503
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
BOB HILL, a/k/a Shawn, a/k/a Marcos Leon,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(CR-03-280)
Submitted: March 30, 2006 Decided: April 5, 2006
Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Cameron B. Littlejohn, Jr., Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellant. Arthur Bradley Parham, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Bob Hill pled guilty to a single count of possessing with
the intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine, in violation
of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) (2000). The district court
sentenced Hill to the mandatory statutory minimum sentence for a
violation of § 841(b)(1)(B) of 120 months’ imprisonment, eight
years of supervised release, and ordered payment of a $100
statutory assessment.1 Hill’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant
to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there
are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioning whether the
district court complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, and whether the
sentence imposed was reasonable. Hill was given an opportunity to
file a pro se brief, but has failed to do so.
Hill did not move in the district court to withdraw his
guilty plea, therefore his challenge to the adequacy of the Rule 11
hearing is reviewed for plain error. See United States v.
Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). We have carefully
reviewed the transcript of the Rule 11 hearing and find no plain
1
While Hill objected in the district court to the application
of the § 841(b)(1)(B) enhanced penalties to his sentence, we find
the district court properly determined that Hill was subject to the
enhanced penalties based on the fact of his prior felony drug
convictions, which Hill did not contest. See United States v.
Thompson, 421 F.3d 278, 282, 283-86 (4th Cir. 2005), cert. denied,
___ U.S. , 2006 WL 521274 (U.S. Mar. 6, 2006) (No. 05-7266);
United States v. Cheek, 415 F.3d 349, 354 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,
126 S. Ct. 640 (2005). The calculated guideline range in this case
was less than the mandatory statutory minimum.
- 2 -
error in the district court’s acceptance of Hill’s guilty plea.2
See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 119-20 (4th Cir. 1991).
Moreover, because the district court properly determined that Hill
was subject to the enhanced penalties as set forth in
§ 841(b)(1)(B), we find that its imposition of a sentence at the
statutory mandatory minimum was patently reasonable because it was
required by statute. See United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540,
546-47 (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 Hill’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
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on the client.
2
We note specifically that the district court informed Hill
during his plea colloquy that he was subject to a ten year
statutorily-mandated minimum sentence, and Hill stated that he
nonetheless wished to plead guilty.
- 3 -
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 -