UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4409
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RODRICKA JERMAINE GAMBRELL,
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-01094-GRA-2)
Submitted: October 18, 2007 Decided: October 23, 2007
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
J. Bradley Bennett, SALVINI & BENNETT, LLC, Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellant. Maxwell Barnes Cauthen, III, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Rodricka Jermaine Gambrell 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), 924(e) (2000).
Under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), Gambrell
was sentenced to the statutory mandatory minimum of 180 months’
imprisonment, plus five years of supervised release. Counsel has
filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), stating there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but
asserting the district court erred by imposing the 180-month
sentence. Gambrell filed a pro se supplemental brief in which he
contends the district court improperly designated him an armed
career criminal and treated the Guidelines as mandatory rather than
as advisory. For the reasons set forth below, we reject Gambrell’s
arguments and affirm.
Although Gambrell ascribes error to his fifteen-year
sentence, 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). Further,
Gambrell’s contention that the district court improperly designated
him an armed career criminal fails because Gambrell had three prior
convictions for violent felony offenses. There is no temporal
restriction on prior felony offenses for purposes of the Armed
Career Criminal Act. See United States v. Presley, 52 F.3d 64, 69-
- 2 -
70 (4th Cir. 1995); U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual, § 4B1.4 cmt.
n.1 (2006). Thus, despite Gambrell’s protestations to the
contrary, the fact that these convictions are more than fifteen
years old is of no legal significance. Lastly, we reject
Gambrell’s argument that the district court treated the Guidelines
as mandatory rather than as advisory;* there is simply no evidence
in the record to support this contention.
Pursuant to Anders, we have examined the entire record
and found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm
the district court’s judgment. 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 Gambrell
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 Gambrell.
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
*
Gambrell was sentenced over two years after United States v.
Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), issued.
- 3 -