UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4761
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TIMOTHY JAMES WEBSTER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:09-cr-00048-NCT-1)
Submitted: March 5, 2010 Decided: March 23, 2010
Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, William S.
Trivette, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Lisa Blue Boggs, Assistant United
States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Timothy Webster pleaded guilty to possession of a
firearm after having previously been convicted of a crime
punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(e) (2006). The
district court sentenced Webster to 200 months of imprisonment
and Webster now appeals. His attorney has filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising
one issue but stating that there are no meritorious issues for
appeal. Webster filed a pro se supplemental brief raising
additional issues. * We affirm.
In the Anders brief, counsel questions whether the
district court erred in finding that Webster was an armed career
criminal under the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”), 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(e). In an appeal premised upon indistinguishable facts,
this court has previously rejected a similar challenge, United
States v. Clark, 993 F.2d 402 (4th Cir. 1993), thus establishing
circuit authority binding on subsequent panels. United
States v. Collins, 415 F.3d 304, 311 (4th Cir. 2005) (“A
decision of a panel of this court becomes the law of the circuit
and is binding on other panels unless it is overruled by a
*
We have considered the claims raised in Webster’s pro se
brief and conclude the claims lack merit.
2
subsequent en banc opinion of this court or a superseding
contrary decision of the Supreme Court.”) (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted). Therefore, this claim fails.
We have examined the entire record in accordance with
the requirements of Anders and have found no meritorious issues
for appeal. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district
court. This court requires that counsel inform Webster, in
writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Webster 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 Webster. 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