UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-5143
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DERRELL LAMONT GILCHRIST, a/k/a Darrell Lamont
Gilchrist,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge.
(CR-02-245-DKC)
Submitted: September 29, 2006 Decided: October 30, 2006
Before NIEMEYER and LUTTIG,* Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Timothy J. Sullivan, SULLIVAN & SULLIVAN, College Park, Maryland,
for Appellant. Deborah A. Johnston, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
*
Judge Luttig was a member of the original panel but did not
participate in this decision. This opinion is filed by a quorum of
the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Following a jury trial, Derrell Lamont Gilchrist was
convicted of three counts of armed bank robbery, 18 U.S.C.
§ 2113(a) & (d) (2000) (Counts 1, 3, 6); one count of conspiracy to
commit bank robbery and carjacking, 18 U.S.C. § 371 (2000) (Count
5); one count of carjacking, 18 U.S.C. § 2119 (2000) (Count 10);
four counts of use of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of
violence, 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c) (West 2000 & Supp. 2006) (Counts 2,
4, 7, 11); and one count of being a felon in possession of a
firearm, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2000) (Count 12). The court sentenced
Gilchrist to 112 years of imprisonment. We affirmed the
conviction. Thereafter, however, we granted Gilchrist’s petition
for rehearing and vacated and remanded to the district court for
resentencing in light of Booker v. United States, 543 U.S. 220
(2005). The district court resentenced Gilchrist to an identical
sentence and he again appeals.
Gilchrist’s 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 issue:
whether the district court erred by allowing Gilchrist to be tried
and sentenced on an indictment that failed to allege specific
violations of 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c)(1)(C). We have previously
rejected this argument. See United States v. Robinson, 404 F.3d
850, 862 (4th Cir. 2005); see also Harris v. United States, 536
- 3 -
U.S. 545 (2002) (holding that Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466
(2000), the precursor case to Booker, applies to facts that
increase the sentence beyond the statutory maximum, but not to
facts that merely increase the mandatory minimum sentence).
We have examined the entire record in this case in
accordance with the requirements of Anders, including the issues
raised in Gilchrist’s pro se supplemental brief, 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 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
- 4 -