Case ID: f-appx_91/html/0282-01.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. Rodney Tyrone RAMEY, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 03-4822.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Feb. 27, 2004.
    Decided: March 29, 2004.
    Benjamin T. Stepp, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant.
    James Strom Thurmond, Jr., United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, Elizabeth Jean Howard, Office of the United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Rodney Tyrone Ramey pled guilty to one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a) (2000). The district court sentenced him to 120 months in prison. Ramey timely appealed.

Ramey’s counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), stating that, in his view, there are no meritorious grounds for appeal. However, he raises the issue of whether the district court complied with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure in accepting Ramey’s guilty plea. After reviewing the transcript of the plea proceeding, we conclude that the district court fully complied with the requirements of Rule 11 in accepting Ramey’s guilty plea.

Ramey has filed a pro se supplemental brief. We have considered his claims and find them to be without merit.

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