UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4091
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMES CALVIN JACKSON,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(4:06-cr-00760-RBH-1)
Submitted: September 30, 2008 Decided: October 21, 2008
Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William F. Nettles, IV, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. Alfred William Walker
Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Pursuant to a plea agreement, James Calvin Jackson
pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in
violation of 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 922(g)(1), 924 (West 2000 & Supp.
2008). He received an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career
Criminal Act (“ACCA”), 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(e) (West 2000 & Supp.
2008). Jackson timely appealed.
Jackson’s attorney has filed a brief in accordance
with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the
adequacy of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing and his sentence
enhancement under the ACCA. Counsel states, however, that he
has found no meritorious grounds for appeal. Jackson filed a
pro se supplemental brief asking the court to take into
consideration that he has a family to support and explaining the
circumstances surrounding his possession of the firearms.
Finding no meritorious grounds for appeal, we affirm.
Because Jackson did not move in the district court to
withdraw his guilty plea, any error in the Rule 11 hearing is
reviewed for plain error. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d
517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002) (discussing standard). Our careful
review of the record convinces us that the district court
complied with the mandates of Rule 11 in accepting Jackson’s
guilty plea and ensured that Jackson entered his plea knowingly
and voluntarily and that the plea was supported by an
2
independent factual basis. United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d
114, 116, 119-20 (4th Cir. 1991).
Next, Jackson asserts that the ACCA enhancement
violated his Sixth Amendment rights because his prior
convictions, upon which the court based the enhancement, were
not charged in the indictment, proved beyond a reasonable doubt,
or admitted by him. As counsel acknowledges, this court
rejected the same argument in United States v. Cheek, 415 F.3d
349, 352-54 (4th Cir. 2005); see also United States v. Thompson,
421 F.3d 278, 283 (4th Cir. 2005).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and considered Jackson’s pro se supplemental brief
and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly,
we affirm Jackson’s conviction and sentence.
This court requires that counsel inform Jackson, in
writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Jackson 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 Jackson. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
3
adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4