UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4428
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JOE LEE NEWCOMB,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Senior
District Judge. (1:06-cr-00421-WLO)
Submitted: September 24, 2007 Decided: October 9, 2007
Before TRAXLER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, William S. Trivette,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Michael
Augustus DeFranco, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Joe Lee Newcomb pled guilty to being a felon in
possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and
924(e) (2000). The district court sentenced Newcomb to 180 months’
incarceration, five years supervised release, and assessed a $100
fine. On appeal, Newcomb’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating there were no
meritorious issues for appeal, but raising for review the issue of
whether the district court erred by not sentencing Newcomb to less
than 180 months’ incarceration. Newcomb was advised of the right
to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not done so.
After United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), a
district court is no longer bound by the range prescribed by the
sentencing guidelines. However, Booker “did nothing to alter the
rule that judges cannot depart below a statutorily provided minimum
sentence” except upon the Government’s motion on the basis of
substantial assistance. United States v. Robinson, 404 F.3d 850,
862 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 916 (2005). For a
defendant, like Newcomb, who is found guilty of being a convicted
felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 922(g)(1), 924(e), the minimum term of incarceration required to
be imposed is 180 months. The district court sentenced Newcomb to
the mandatory minimum penalty. The district court did not have the
- 2 -
legal authority to impose any less time, and thus did not err by
declining to do so.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm Newcomb’s conviction and sentence.
This court requires that counsel inform Newcomb, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Newcomb 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 Newcomb.
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 -