UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4828
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
GARY EUGENE WILSON, II,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, Chief District
Judge. (1:07-cr-00003-jpj)
Submitted: May 22, 2008 Decided: May 27, 2008
Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Larry W. Shelton, Federal Public Defender, Nancy C. Dickenson,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Christine Madeleine Spurell,
Research and Writing Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellant.
Jean Barrett Hudson, Assistant United States Attorney,
Charlottesville, Virginia; Dennis H. Lee, COMMONWEALTH’S ATTORNEY’S
OFFICE, Tazewell, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Gary Eugene Wilson, II, pled guilty to possession of a
firearm by a convicted felon and was sentenced to 200 months in
prison. On appeal, his attorney has filed an Anders* brief,
concluding that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but
questioning whether Wilson’s classification as an armed career
criminal pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(e) (West 2000 & Supp. 2007),
was unconstitutional since Wilson’s predicate convictions were not
charged in the indictment. Although informed of his right to do
so, Wilson has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. After a
thorough review of the entire record, we affirm.
As counsel notes, Wilson’s argument is barred by
controlling circuit precedent. We have repeatedly found that the
indictment need not reference or list prior convictions used as a
basis for an armed career criminal sentence. See, e.g., United
States v. Thompson, 421 F.3d 278, 284 n.4 (4th Cir. 2005); United
States v. Cheek, 415 F.3d 349, 352-54 (4th Cir. 2005).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
Accordingly, we affirm Wilson’s conviction and sentence. 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
*
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 575 (2000).
- 2 -
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 -