UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4824
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LARRY LINERAL STEVENSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (1:07-cr-00421-JAB-1)
Submitted: February 26, 2009 Decided: March 3, 2009
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, Gregory Davis,
Senior Litigator, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorney,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Larry Lineral Stevenson pled guilty pursuant to a
written plea agreement to possession of a firearm by a felon, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006). The district court
determined the statutory conditions set forth in the Armed
Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”), see 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) (2006),
were satisfied and sentenced Stevenson to 188 months’
imprisonment. Finding no error, we affirm.
Counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), on appeal, questioning whether
the district court erred in finding Stevenson had the requisite
number of predicate state convictions to support enhancement
under the ACCA. Stevenson was notified of his right to file a
pro se supplemental brief but did not do so.
Stevenson reasons that he was improperly classified as
an armed career criminal because, under North Carolina law, he
was subject to less than one year of imprisonment on several of
his prior violent felony convictions. However, as counsel
concedes, this argument is foreclosed by United States v.
Rodriquez, 128 S. Ct. 1783, 1792-93 (2008) (defining phrase
“maximum term of imprisonment” in § 924(e) as maximum term
permitted by state statute, including recidivist provisions),
and United States v. Harp, 406 F.3d 242, 246-47 (4th Cir. 2005)
(determining satisfaction of recidivist guideline requirement
2
that prior conviction was punishable by term exceeding one year
depends on “the maximum aggravated sentence that could be
imposed for that crime upon a defendant with the worst possible
criminal history”). Thus, because it is undisputed that the
prior convictions at issue were punishable by maximum terms of
imprisonment exceeding one year, we conclude the district court
did not err in finding Stevenson satisfied the requirements
under the ACCA.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. 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 counsel believes that such a petition
would be frivolous, then counsel may move 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 in the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3