UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4101
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KEVIN LYNDELL DAVIS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(4:07-cr-01177-RBH-1)
Submitted: July 21, 2009 Decided: August 25, 2009
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 written plea agreement, Kevin Lyndell
Davis pled guilty to Hobbs Act robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a)
(2006). The plea agreement specified that a six-year sentence
was appropriate; this provision was binding upon the district
court upon acceptance of the plea agreement. See Fed. R. Crim.
P. 11(c)(1)(C). Davis accordingly was sentenced to six years in
prison. He now appeals. His attorney has filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
questioning whether Davis’ guilty plea was valid and his
sentence reasonable, but stating that there are no grounds for
appeal. Davis was notified of his right to file a pro se
supplemental brief but has not filed such a brief. We affirm.
Our review of the transcript of the plea colloquy
discloses full compliance with Rule 11. Furthermore, the record
reveals that Davis entered his plea voluntarily and knowingly
and that there was a factual basis for the plea. Finally, we
conclude that the six-year sentence is reasonable.
We have reviewed the entire record in accordance with
Anders and have not identified any meritorious issues for
appeal. Accordingly, we affirm. This court requires counsel to
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
2
that such a petition would be frivolous, counsel may move in
this court to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion
must state that a copy of the motion 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