UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4407
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSHUA HOLMES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, Chief District
Judge. (2:08-cr-00845-DCN-1)
Submitted: June 2, 2010 Decided: June 14, 2010
Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
J. Robert Haley, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston,
South Carolina, for Appellant. William Walter Wilkins, III,
United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, Matthew J.
Modica, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Joshua Holmes appeals from his conviction and fifty-
seven month sentence imposed after his guilty plea to one count
of possession of a firearm after a felony conviction in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (2006).
Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts there are
no meritorious issues for appeal. Holmes was notified of his
right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not done so.
Upon review of the transcript of the Fed. R. Crim. P.
11 hearing, we conclude that the district court complied with
the requirements of Rule 11. Moreover, Holmes did not move to
withdraw his plea in the district court, so any error in the
Rule 11 hearing is reviewed for plain error. United States v.
Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). Because the record
discloses no such error, Holmes’s guilty plea was knowing and
voluntary. See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116,
119-20 (4th Cir. 1991).
The district court properly calculated the advisory
guidelines range and imposed a sentence within that range,
rejecting the Government’s request for an upward departure. We
find that the district court imposed a sentence that is
procedurally and substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United
2
States, 552 U.S. 38, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007) (review of
sentence is for abuse of discretion).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
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 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 filing 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 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