UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4621
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANTHONY WAYNE MANGUM,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,
District Judge. (1:06-cr-00058-NCT)
Submitted: March 17, 2008 Decided: March 27, 2008
Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lisa S. Costner, LISA S. COSTNER, P.A., Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellant. David Paul Folmar, Jr., Assistant United
States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Wayne Mangum pled guilty to conspiracy to
distribute fifty grams or more of cocaine base (crack), 21 U.S.C.
§ 846 (2000), and was sentenced as a career offender to a term of
262 months imprisonment. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4B1.1
(2006). Mangum’s attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising one issue but stating
that, in her view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal.
Mangum has filed an untimely pro se supplemental brief in which he
raises additional issues. We affirm.
Counsel suggests that the district court erred in
sentencing Mangum as a career offender. However, the record
discloses that Mangum was properly sentenced as a career offender.
In his pro se supplemental brief, Mangum argues that he is not a
career offender, asserts that he was pressured by his first
appointed attorney to plead guilty, and maintains that he was not
mentally competent at sentencing because of medication he was
taking. Because Mangum did not seek to withdraw his guilty plea in
the district court, or raise any of these issues below, we review
all his claims for plain error. United States v. Martinez, 277
F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002); see also United States v. Olano, 507
U.S. 725, 731-32 (1993). Having carefully reviewed the record, we
are satisfied that plain error did not occur.
- 2 -
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 her client, in writing, of his 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 -