UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4171
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DENISE MICHELLE CLARK,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert E. Maxwell, Senior
District Judge. (2:05-cr-00044-REM)
Submitted: October 11, 2007 Decided: October 15, 2007
Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joseph A. Wallace, Elkins, West Virginia, for Appellant. Sharon
L. Potter, United States Attorney, Shawn Angus Morgan, Assistant
United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Denise Michelle Clark appeals the forty-eight-month
sentence she received after she pled guilty to possession of a
firearm by a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000).
Clark’s attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising three issues, but
stating that, in his view, there are no meritorious issues for
appeal. Clark has been informed of her right to file a pro se
supplemental brief, but has not filed a brief. We affirm.
On appeal, counsel suggests that the district court erred
in accepting Clark’s guilty plea, in determining her relevant
conduct under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1 (2006), and
in denying her an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility under
USSG § 3E1.1. However, our review of record discloses that the
district court fully complied with the mandates of Fed. R. Crim. P.
11 in accepting Clark’s guilty plea and ensured that her plea was
knowing and voluntary and supported by an independent factual
basis. See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116 4th Cir.
1991). The district court did not err in accepting Clark’s
stipulation to a base offense level of fourteen and a four-level
enhancement for an offense involving eight to twenty-four firearms.
Finally, the court did not clearly err in finding that Clark
obstructed justice and had not accepted responsibility in light of
her attempt to intimidate a witness with a pellet gun while on pre-
- 2 -
trial release. The sentence was imposed after the district court
considered the correctly calculated advisory guideline range, and
the factors set out in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp.
2007), and we conclude that the sentence is reasonable.
Pursuant to Anders, we have examined the entire record
and find no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm
the district court’s judgment. This court requires that counsel
inform his client, in writing of her right to petition the Supreme
Court of the United States for further review. If the client
requests that such 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 -