UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4953
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JEFFERY AUSTIN MCNEFF,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (3:05-cr-00369)
Submitted: February 15, 2007 Decided: February 20, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Angela Parrott, Federal Defenders of Western North Carolina, Inc.,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. C. Nicks Williams,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jeffery Austin McNeff pled guilty to one count of
possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a crime
punishable by more than one year of imprisonment in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 922(g) (2000). The district court determined that McNeff
qualified for sentencing as an armed career criminal and sentenced
him to the statutory minimum 180 months of imprisonment. On
appeal, counsel filed an Anders* brief, in which she states that
there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but suggests that the
district court erred in sentencing McNeff as an armed career
criminal. McNeff has filed a pro se supplemental brief in which he
repeats counsel’s assertion and raises other claims related to his
conviction and sentence. We affirm.
In considering whether the district court properly
designated McNeff as an armed career criminal, this court reviews
the district court’s legal determinations de novo and its factual
findings for clear error. United States v. Wardrick, 350 F.3d 446,
451 (4th Cir. 2003). Our review of the record leads us to conclude
that no error occurred in applying the armed career criminal
statute in this case. United States v. Thompson, 421 F.3d 278, 284
(4th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1463 (2006).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
*
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
- 2 -
appeal. We have considered the arguments asserted in McNeff’s pro
se supplemental brief and find them to be without merit. We
therefore affirm McNeff’s conviction and sentence. This court
requires that counsel inform McNeff, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review.
If McNeff 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 McNeff. 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 -