UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4654
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
NEIL CALVIN JOHNSON,
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-00900-RBH-1)
Submitted: November 24, 2009 Decided: December 18, 2009
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael A. Meetze, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Florence,
South Carolina; Aileen P. Clare, Research and Writing
Specialist, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Rose Mary
Sheppard Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence,
South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Neil Calvin Johnson pled guilty to being a felon in
possession of a firearm and ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 922(g), 924(e) (2006). Johnson was sentenced to 180 months
of imprisonment. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant
to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there
are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but raising the following
issues: (1) whether Johnson knowingly and voluntarily pled
guilty under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, and (2) whether his sentence
was reasonable. Johnson has filed a pro se supplemental brief
contesting the finding in his presentence report that he was an
armed career criminal. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
First, we find no plain error in the district court’s
plea hearing. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b); United States v.
General, 278 F.3d 389, 394 (4th Cir. 2002) (providing review
standard where a defendant does not move to withdraw his guilty
plea and later challenges his Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 plea
colloquy). Second, we find no abuse of discretion in Johnson’s
sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007)
(providing standard). We note that Johnson’s 180-month sentence
is the statutory minimum sentence. Finally, Johnson’s claim
that he was improperly found to be an armed career criminal is
factually inaccurate. Johnson had at least three prior
convictions which met the definition of a violent felony as
2
needed for the enhancement. 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1)(2)(B); see
generally Begay v. United States, __ U.S. __, 128 S. Ct. 1581,
1585-88 (2008) (discussing analysis of a violent felony).
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 the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3