UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4641
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
HENRY JAMES JORDAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:15-cr-00109-CCE-2)
Submitted: May 31, 2016 Decided: June 3, 2016
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mark A. Jones, BELL, DAVIS & PITT, PA, Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Dana James Boente, Acting United
States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, Graham Tod Green,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Henry James Jordan pled guilty in accordance with a written
plea agreement to bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 2113(a), and § 2 (2012). He was sentenced to 77 months of
imprisonment, the bottom of his properly calculated Sentencing
Guidelines range. Jordan appeals and his attorney has filed a
brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), questioning whether he knowingly and voluntarily pled
guilty, but concluding that there are no meritorious issues for
appeal. Jordan was advised of the right to file a pro se
supplemental brief but has failed to do so. We affirm.
Because Jordan did not attempt to withdraw his guilty plea
in the district court, we review this issue for plain error, see
United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 527 (4th Cir. 2002)
(stating standard), and find none. A review of Jordan’s plea
hearing reveals it was conducted in compliance with Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11 and that he knowingly and voluntarily pled guilty.
Pursuant to Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and
have found no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we
affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires that
counsel inform Jordan, in writing, of the right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If
Jordan requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes
that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move
2
in this court for leave to withdraw from representation.
Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on
Jordan. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
3