UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4356
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
VAUGHN K. BARNES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(4:05-cr-01134-TLW)
Submitted: November 15, 2006 Decided: November 20, 2006
Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kathy J. Price Elmore, ORR, ELMORE & ERVIN, LLC, Florence, South
Carolina, for Appellant. William Earl Day II, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Vaughn K. Barnes’ appeals from his conviction pursuant to
a guilty plea to uttering and possessing counterfeit securities and
his resulting sentence of three years probation. Barnes’ counsel
filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues of appeal, but
addressing the validity of Barnes’ plea and sentence. Barnes was
informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he
has not done so. Because our review of the record discloses no
reversible error, we affirm.
We find Barnes’ guilty plea was knowingly and voluntarily
entered after a thorough hearing pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11.
Barnes was properly advised of his rights, the offense charged, and
the maximum sentence for the offense. The court also determined
that there was an independent factual basis for the plea and that
the plea was not coerced or influenced by promises. See North
Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 31 (1970); United States v.
DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116-20 (4th Cir. 1991).
We find the district court properly applied the
Sentencing Guidelines and considered the relevant factors before
imposing the three-year probationary term. 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a)
(West 2000 & Supp. 2006); see United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d
540, 546-47 (4th Cir. 2005). Additionally, we find that the
sentence imposed was reasonable. See United States v. Green, 436
- 2 -
F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir.) (holding that a sentence within the
properly calculated guideline range is presumptively reasonable),
cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2309 (2006).
This court requires that counsel inform her 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
- 3 -