UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-5107
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARK CHRISTOPHER HOLMAN, a/k/a Mark Christopher Holeman,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen,
Jr., District Judge. (1:08-cr-00004-WO-1)
Submitted: May 28, 2009 Decided: June 2, 2009
Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, William C. Ingram,
First Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Mark Christopher Holman appeals from his conviction
and 180-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to
possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Holman’s attorney
filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), addressing the validity of the guilty plea and the
reasonableness of the sentence, but stating that there was no
merit to the appeal. Holman filed a pro se brief challenging
his sentence, the district court’s jurisdiction, and asserting
that the district court should have held a hearing to address
his motions to withdraw his plea, to relieve counsel, and for an
evaluation. Our review of the record discloses no reversible
error; accordingly, we affirm Holman’s conviction and sentence.
We find that Holman’s guilty plea was knowingly and
voluntarily entered after a thorough hearing pursuant to Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11. Holman was properly advised of his rights, the
offense charged, and the mandatory minimum sentence he faced.
The court also determined that there was an independent factual
basis for the plea and that the plea was not coerced or
influenced by any promises. See United States v. DeFusco, 949
F.2d 114, 119-20 (4th Cir. 1991).
The court reviews Holman’s sentence for reasonableness
under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. See Gall v.
United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 591 (2007). In reviewing a
2
sentence, this court must first ensure that the district court
committed no significant procedural error, such as incorrectly
calculating the guideline range. United States v. Osborne, 514
F.3d 377, 387 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 2525 (2008).
The court then considers the substantive reasonableness of the
sentence imposed under the totality of the circumstances. Gall,
128 S. Ct. at 597. Holman was sentenced to the statutory
mandatory minimum sentence of 180 months’ imprisonment and we
find the sentence reasonable.
As required by Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
further find no merit to the claims raised in Holman’s pro se
supplemental brief. We therefore affirm Holman’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 counsel believes that such a petition
would be frivolous, then counsel may renew his motion 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