Case ID: f-appx_80/html/0871-01.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. Jeffrey BINGLEY, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 03-4477.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 6, 2003.
    Decided Nov. 17, 2003.
    William F. Nettles, IV, Assistant Federal Pubhc Defender, Florence, South Carolina, for Appehant.
    Miller Williams Shealy, Jr., Office of the United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpubhshed opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Jeffrey Bingley pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base, 21 U.S.C. § 846(a) (2000). Bingley’s counsel has a filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), raising one possible sentencing issue on appeal and asking this court to review the guilty plea hearing, but stating that, in his view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Bingley was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has failed to do so.

Bingley was sentenced as a career offender under U.S. Sentencing Guideline Manual § 4B1.1 (2002) based on three previous rug felonies delineated in the Presentence Report. Bingley did not object to the Presentence Report’s findings at the sentencing hearing, and does not point out error on appeal. We conclude the district court did not commit clear error in its application of the career offender provisions. Our review of the transcript of the plea proceeding reveals that the district court fully complied with the requirements of Rule 11 in accepting Bingley’s guilty plea.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Bingley’s 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