UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-5212
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
LEONARD A. CLEMENT, a/k/a L,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees,
District Judge. (05:05-cr-00009-23)
Submitted: July 25, 2007 Decided: August 2, 2007
Before GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Reggie E. McKnight, MCKNIGHT LAW FIRM, P.L.L.C., Charlotte, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas Tullidge Cullen, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Leonard A. Clement pled guilty to conspiracy to possess
with intent to distribute more than fifty grams of crack cocaine,
more than five kilograms of cocaine, and more than 1000 kilograms
of marijuana (Count 1), in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000).
The district court imposed a mandatory life sentence under 21
U.S.C.A. § 841(b)(1)(A) (West 1999 & Supp. 2007), based upon at
least two prior felony drug convictions. Clement’s counsel has
filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), challenging Clement’s sentence but stating that, in his
view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Clement filed a
pro se supplemental brief. We affirm.
Relying on United States v. Collins, 415 F.3d 304 (4th
Cir. 2005), counsel suggests that the district court erred by
sentencing Clement without first determining the amount and type of
drugs attributable to him individually. Counsel also asserts that
the district court violated Clement’s Sixth Amendment rights at
sentencing. Because Clement did not object at sentencing on these
grounds, this court’s review is for plain error. See United
States v. Smith, 452 F.3d 323, 330-31 (4th Cir.) (discussing
standard of review), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 694 (2006). Here,
the district court sentenced Clement to a mandatory life sentence
under § 841(b)(1)(A) based upon at least two prior felony drug
convictions. Moreover, contrary to Clement’s claim in his pro se
- 2 -
supplemental brief that his prior convictions were misdemeanors, he
admitted at the sentencing hearing that the prior convictions were
felonies. Thus, we conclude there is no error in Clement’s
sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record for any meritorious issues and have found none.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. This court
requires that counsel inform the 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 -