UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-5103
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TERRY DEAN LESTER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, Chief District
Judge. (1:06-cr-00067-jpj-1)
Submitted: September 11, 2008 Decided: September 15, 2008
Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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.
John L. Brownlee, United States Attorney, Jennifer R. Bockhorst,
Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Terry Dean Lester pled guilty to possession of a firearm
by a convicted felon after having been subject to a protective
court order, and was sentenced to 180 months in prison, the
statutory mandatory minimum term pursuant to the Armed Career
Criminal Act. See 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 922(g), 924(e)(1) (West 2000 &
Supp. 2008). On appeal, his attorney has filed an Anders* brief,
concluding that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but
asserting that Lester’s classification as an armed career criminal
was unconstitutional because Lester’s predicate convictions were
not charged in the indictment. Although informed of his right to
do so, Lester has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. After a
thorough review of the entire record, we affirm.
As counsel notes, Lester’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 Lester’s conviction and sentence. This
court requires that counsel inform her client, in writing, of his
*
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
2
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 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