UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4393
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
STEVEN ANTHONY LAMONDS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief
District Judge. (1:06-cr-00244-JAB; 1:06-cr-00282-JAB-1)
Submitted: October 18, 2007 Decided: October 23, 2007
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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. Clifton Thomas Barrett, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Steven Anthony Lamonds pled guilty, pursuant to a written
plea agreement, to six offenses arising out of a bank robbery and
a robbery of a Food Lion grocery store. Lamonds was sentenced as
an armed career criminal to 180 months of imprisonment on all
counts except Count Three of the bank robbery indictment
(brandishing a short-barreled shotgun during a bank robbery), for
which he was sentenced to a mandatory minimum consecutive term of
ten years imprisonment. 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(B), (e)(1) (2000).
Lamonds’ attorney has filed a brief in accordance with
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), contending that no
meritorious issues exist for appeal but suggesting that the
district court imposed an unreasonable sentence under United
States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). Although informed of his
right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Lamonds has not done so.
Lamonds was sentenced to a total term of 300 months
imprisonment, the statutory mandatory minimum sentence. The
district court possessed no discretion to sentence below the
statutory mandatory minimum sentence, because “Booker did nothing
to alter the rule that judges cannot depart below a statutorily
provided minimum sentence.” United States v. Robinson, 404 F.3d
850, 862 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 916 (2005).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
- 2 -
appeal. 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 the client requests that a petition
be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be
frivolous, then counsel may move 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 -