UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4978
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TRAVIS DARRELL HAYNES,
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-4)
Submitted: June 4, 2012 Decided: June 12, 2012
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William W. Watkins, Sr., WILLIAM W. WATKINS, P.A., Columbia,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Travis Darrell Haynes pleaded guilty, pursuant to a
written plea agreement, to two counts 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). Haynes was sentenced to consecutive terms of
imprisonment of eighty-four and 300 months followed by
concurrent five-year terms of supervised release. On appeal,
Haynes’ counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he states that he can find no
meritorious issues for appeal. Counsel requests our review of
the district court’s compliance with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 and the
reasonableness of Haynes’ sentence. Haynes filed a pro se
supplemental brief in which he contends that his sentences
constitute multiple punishments for the same offense.
Our review of the plea hearing transcript uncovers no
violation of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11. Nor do we find Haynes’
sentences to be unreasonable. The imposition of a sentence at
no greater than the statutorily-mandated minimum term is per se
reasonable. United States v. Farrior, 535 F.3d 210, 224 (4th
Cir. 2008). Haynes’ sentences were both within-Guidelines and
the minimum sentences permitted by statute. The consecutive
nature of Haynes’ custodial sentences was likewise mandated by
statute. 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(D)(ii) (2006). Haynes’ pro se
2
double jeopardy argument also fails. Although he was convicted
twice under the same statute of conviction, he has not been
punished twice for the same offense. His convictions arose from
distinct offenses — the brandishing of firearms during robberies
of different gas stations on different days. Thus, we find no
error.
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 Haynes, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Haynes 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 Haynes.
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