UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4107
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JASON DAVID MITCHELL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (6:06-cr-00627-GRA)
Submitted: September 19, 2007 Decided: September 27, 2007
Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Rodney W. Richey, RICHEY AND RICHEY, Greenville, South Carolina,
for Appellant. Maxwell B. Cauthen, III, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jason David Mitchell pled guilty without a plea agreement
to one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000) and 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(e)
(West 2000 & Supp. 2007). Under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18
U.S.C. § 924(e), Mitchell was sentenced to the statutorily mandated
minimum sentence of 180 months’ imprisonment plus three years of
supervised release. Counsel has filed a brief in accordance with
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are
no meritorious issues for appeal, but asserting that the district
court erred by imposing 180 months’ imprisonment. Mitchell was
advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has
not done so. We affirm.
Although Mitchell contends that his fifteen-year sentence
is unreasonable considering the circumstances of his offense, the
district court had no discretion to depart from the mandatory
minimum sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). See United States v.
Robinson, 404 F.3d 850, 862 (4th Cir. 2005).
Pursuant to Anders, we have examined the entire record
and find no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm
Mitchell’s conviction and sentence. 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 Mitchell
requests that such a petition be filed, but counsel believes that
- 2 -
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 Mitchell.
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 -