UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4431
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
C. ALLEN BOLT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (6:08-cr-01015-GRA-1; 6:08-cr-00213-GRA-1)
Submitted: April 7, 2010 Decided: April 29, 2010
Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lora E. Collins, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Elizabeth Jean Howard, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
On September 29, 2008, C. Allen Bolt pled guilty to
possession with intent to distribute cocaine base and marijuana,
being a felon in possession of a firearm, and using a firearm in
relation to a drug trafficking crime, pursuant to 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(b)(1)(B) (2006), 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and
924(c)(1)(A)(I) (2006). (No. 6:08-cr-00213-GRA-1). On
February 25, 2009, in a separate proceeding, Bolt pled guilty to
an additional count of being a felon in possession of a firearm.
(No. 6:08-cr-01015-GRA-1). On April 22, 2009, Bolt was
sentenced in both proceedings to serve 240 months’ imprisonment
and five years’ supervised release. Bolt appealed.
Counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that after a review of
the record, she has found no meritorious issues for appeal.
Bolt has filed a pro se supplemental brief, in which he
challenges the district court’s determination that he should be
sentenced as an Armed Career Criminal, as well as its imposition
of consecutive mandatory minimum sentences under 18 U.S.C.
§§ 922 and 924 (2006). The Government has not filed a response
to either brief.
In the absence of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea,
we review the adequacy of the guilty plea pursuant to Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11 for plain error. United States v. Martinez,
2
277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). A review of Bolt’s Rule 11
hearings reveals that the district court substantially complied
with the Rule’s requirements. Bolt’s plea was knowingly,
voluntarily, and intelligently made, with full knowledge of the
consequences attendant to his guilty plea. We therefore find
that no plain error occurred and affirm Bolt’s conviction.
We also affirm Bolt’s sentence. The district court
properly assessed Bolt’s criminal history as category IV and
calculated a total offense level of thirty, which, when coupled
with his classification as an Armed Career Criminal, yielded a
Guidelines range of 180 months plus 60 months of consecutive
imprisonment. Moreover, at sentencing, the district court heard
from Bolt’s attorney, allowed Bolt an opportunity to allocute,
heard from Bolt’s wife and daughter, reviewed letters submitted
on Bolt’s behalf, and considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006)
factors before imposing sentence. Finally, the district court
gave plausible and justifiable reasons for sentencing Bolt in
the manner that it did. See United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d
468, 473-76 (4th Cir. 2007); see also United States v. Carter,
564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009).
Further, Bolt’s challenges to his classification as an
Armed Career Criminal and his consecutive mandatory minimum
sentences are without merit. The record indicates that Bolt had
the requisite predicate offenses to be categorized as an Armed
3
Career Criminal. See United States v. Letterlough, 63 F.3d 332,
335 (4th Cir. 1995); see also United States v. Thompson,
421 F.3d 278 (4th Cir. 2005). Moreover, the district court was
justified in relying on the Presentence Investigation Report to
support its findings in that regard “because it bears the
earmarks of derivation from Shepard-approved sources.”
Thompson, 421 F.3d at 285 (discussing Shepard v. United States,
544 U.S. 13 (2005) (listing factors that a court may consider in
determining Armed Career Criminal status)).
Finally, we reject Bolt’s statutory interpretation
arguments that would, if accepted, require us to overturn our
prior decision in United States v. Studifin, 240 F.3d 415
(4th Cir. 2001) (interpreting 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)’s mandatory
consecutive sentencing scheme). It is a well settled part of
our jurisprudence that one panel of this court cannot overrule
the decision of a prior panel. See generally United States v.
Collins, 415 F.3d 304, 311 (4th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, we
affirm Bolt’s sentence. See United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d
178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007) (this court applies a presumption of
reasonableness to a within-Guidelines sentence).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court
requires that counsel inform Bolt, in writing, of the right to
4
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Bolt 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 Bolt. We deny Bolt’s motion for appointment of
new counsel and to file additional supplemental briefing. 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
5