Case ID: f-appx_13/html/0065-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Morris Lamonte MACK, a/k/a Lamont, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 00-4832.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted April 10, 2001.
    Decided April 30, 2001.
    Jan S. Strifling, Columbia, SC, for appellant. Stacey Denise Haynes, Office of the United States Attorney, Columbia, SC, for appellee.
    Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Morris Lamonte Mack appeals from a 324-month term of imprisonment imposed following his guilty plea to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute powder cocaine and crack cocaine. Mack’s attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Counsel states that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but addresses the following issue: whether Mack’s sentence violates Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), because his sentence was enhanced due to a prior felony drug conviction. Relying on Apprendi, Mack has filed a pro se supplemental brief raising three issues: (1) his sentence is invalid; (2) his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary; and (3) the indictment was defective. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

Under Apprendi, any fact, other than a prior conviction, that increases the maximum penalty for a crime is an element of the offense, and as such, must be charged in the indictment, submitted to a jury, and proven beyond a reasonable doubt. 120 S.Ct. at 2362-63. The district court’s decision to use Mack’s prior felony drug conviction to enhance his sentence under 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(b)(1)(C) (West 1999) was not in error. See Almendarez-Torres v.. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998); United States v. Jones, 245 F.3d 645, 648 (7th Cir.2001).

We find the issues raised in Mack’s pro se supplemental brief are without merit.

We have examined the entire record in this case in accordance with the requirements of Anders, and we find no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the conviction and sentence. 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 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 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.