UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4936
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CHRISTOPHER TIM FLORENCE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
District Judge. (CR-04-497)
Submitted: May 10, 2006 Decided: June 16, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ames C. Chamberlin, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Michael Augustus DeFranco, Assistant United States Attorney,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Christopher Tim Florence pled guilty to possession with
intent to distribute 95.7 grams of cocaine base “crack” and was
sentenced to 268 months of imprisonment. On appeal, counsel has
filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
alleging that there are no meritorious claims on appeal but raising
the following issues: whether (1) the district court complied with
Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in conducting Florence’s plea hearing, and
(2) the sentence was reasonable. For the reasons that follow, we
affirm.
We do not find that the district court plainly erred at
Florence’s plea hearing. United States v. General, 278 F.3d 389,
393 (4th Cir. 2002) (stating review standard). The court complied
with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in conducting the hearing. Next, we do
not find that Florence’s sentence was unreasonable. United
States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 261 (2005) (stating review
standard); United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546-47 (4th Cir.
2005) (same). Therefore, these claims fail.
We have examined the entire record in this case, in
accordance with the requirements of Anders, and find no meritorious
issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm. 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
- 2 -
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 decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -