Case ID: f-appx_145/html/0412-01.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. Freeman L. HANKINS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 03-4935.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 18, 2005.
    Decided Aug. 23, 2005.
    William Lee Davis, III, Lumberton, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne Margaret Hayes, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Freeman Leroy Hankins appeals the district court order sentencing him to thirty-seven months in prison following his guilty plea to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000). In his appeal, filed pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), counsel for Hankins asserts there are no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Hankins was notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not filed a brief. Because our review of the record discloses no reversible error, we affirm Hankins’ conviction and sentence.

Hankins was advised of the nature of the charge against him, the potential punishment, and the rights he was waiving by entering a plea of guilty, and he knowingly and intelligently waived those rights and pled guilty. Moreover, the sentence imposed by the district court was within the guidelines range established by the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (2002). There were no judicial enhancements to Hankins’ sentence, thus United States v. Booker, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), is not implicated. Finally, we find that the district court did not plainly err in treating the guidelines as mandatory since there is no evidence of prejudice as required under United States v. White, 405 F.3d 208, 223 (4th Cir.2005).

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

AFFIRMED