UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-5006
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAQUAN BROOKS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(4:11-cr-00079-RBH-2)
Submitted: June 5, 2012 Decided: June 12, 2012
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Rose Mary Parham, PARHAM LAW FIRM, LLC, Florence, South
Carolina, for Appellant. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jaquan Brooks pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written
plea agreement, to one count of obstructing, delaying, and
affecting commerce and the movement of articles and commodities
in commerce by robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951(a), 2
(2006), and one count of use and carry of a firearm during and
in relation to, and in furtherance of, a crime of violence, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A), 2 (2006). The plea
agreement between Brooks and the Government stipulated to a
cumulative term of imprisonment of nineteen years. The district
court accepted Brooks’ plea and, in accordance with the plea
agreement, sentenced Brooks to 108 months’ imprisonment for the
robbery conviction followed by a term of 120 months’
imprisonment for the firearm conviction. On appeal, Brooks’
counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967), in which she states that she can find no meritorious
issue for appeal. Counsel requests our review of the district
court’s compliance with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 and the
reasonableness of Brooks’ sentence. Brooks was afforded an
opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not
done so.
Our review of the plea hearing transcript uncovers no
violation of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11. Nor do we find any error in
Brooks’ sentence. Because Brooks received the bargained-for
2
nineteen year custodial sentence, our appellate review is
confined to the issues of whether the sentence was imposed in
violation of law or was imposed as the result of an incorrect
application of the Sentencing Guidelines. 18 U.S.C.
§ 3742(c)(1) (2006); see also United States v. Sanchez, 146 F.3d
796, 797 (10th Cir. 1998). We find neither to be the case here.
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 Brooks, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Brooks 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 Brooks.
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