UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 02-4473

LEAMON BUBBIE FEATHERSTONE, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 02-4479

MICHAEL WILLIAMS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 02-4603

OTIS EDWARD ROBINSON, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham.

N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief District Judge;

James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge.

(CR-01-420, CR-02-4)

Submitted: February 12, 2003

Decided: March 3, 2003
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Paul James, STOWERS & JAMES, P.A., Winston-Salem, North Carolina; Charles D. Luckey, BLANCO, TACKABERY, COMBS &

MATAMOROS, P.A., Winston-Salem, North Carolina; Danny T.

Ferguson, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellants. Anna

Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, L. Patrick Auld, Assistant

United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Leamon Bubbie Featherstone, Jr., Michael Williams, and Otis

Edward Robinson, Jr., pleaded guilty to bank robbery, 18 U.S.C.

§ 2113(a) (2000), and using and carrying a firearm during a crime of

violence, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) (2000). Those convictions

related to the November 6, 2001, robbery of a Morris Plan Bank in

Greensboro, North Carolina. Featherstone and Robinson also pleaded

guilty to robbing a First Citizens Bank in Greensboro on August 22,

2001. Featherstone was sentenced to 110 months for the two robberies, Robinson was sentenced as a career offender to 169 months

for the two robberies, and Williams was sentenced to sixty-six months

for the Morris Plan Bank robbery. Each defendant also received a

consecutive, seven-year sentence for the firearm conviction. 

2 UNITED STATES v. FEATHERSTONE
The defendants now appeal. Williams raises one sentencing issue

in his brief. Counsel for Featherstone and Robinson have filed briefs

in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), claiming that their guilty pleas were involuntary but stating that there are

no meritorious issues for appeal. Neither Robinson nor Featherstone

filed a pro se supplemental brief after being advised of the right to

submit such a brief. We affirm. 

I

On August 22, 2001, Robinson and Featherstone entered the

Greensboro bank and ordered everyone in the bank to lie on the floor.

Robinson controlled the people with a handgun while Featherstone

emptied cash drawers. They left the bank with over $50,000 and

escaped in a getaway car driven by Joseph Benton. 

The Morris Plan Bank robbery followed a similar pattern. Featherstone, Robinson, and Williams entered the bank. Brandishing handguns, Robinson and Williams ordered those present to lie on the floor

while Featherstone emptied cash drawers. They left the bank with

over $15,000. Benton again was waiting in the getaway car. The four

men were apprehended later that day. 

II

Williams raises one sentencing issue on appeal. He claims that the

district court erred when it enhanced his offense level by two levels

for physical restraint of the robbery victims. See U.S. Sentencing

Guidelines Manual § 2B3.1(b)(4)(B) (2001). We review de novo the

district court’s legal interpretation of a guideline. United States v.

Dawkins, 202 F.3d 711, 714 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1121

(2000). 

The record reveals that one of the robbers grabbed a bank

employee by the arm and pulled her into the bank lobby. Furthermore,

the robbers controlled the movements of persons in the bank by brandishing handguns. Under these circumstances, we conclude that robbery victims were "physically restrained" within the meaning of the

guideline and that the enhancement was proper. See United States v.

UNITED STATES v. FEATHERSTONE 3
Wilson, 198 F.3d 467, 471-72 (4th Cir. 1999); United States v. Stokley, 881 F.2d 114, 116 (4th Cir. 1989).

III

Robinson and Featherstone contend in their Anders briefs that their

pleas were involuntary. During the plea colloquy, both defendants

stated that they understood the charges against them, the penalties

they faced, and the rights they were waiving by pleading guilty. Each

said that he was pleading guilty because he was, in fact, guilty. Both

Robinson and Featherstone were forty-seven years old and had GEDs.

Each had read the written factual basis for the pleas and stated that

the facts were correct. Both Featherstone and Robinson expressed satisfaction with their attorneys, and neither defendant was under the

influence of alcohol, medicine, or other substance that might affect

his ability to understand the proceedings. 

Featherstone does not support his contention that his plea was

involuntary. Robinson’s reasoning is that the district court failed in its

duty under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1) to advise him that it had the

authority to depart from a sentencing guideline range. Robinson did

not move to withdraw his plea in the district court; therefore, we

review the district court’s oversight in accordance with United States

v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, __ U.S. __, 71

U.S.L.W. 3242 (U.S. Oct. 7, 2002) (No. 02-5170). We conclude that

the district court’s error did not affect Martinez’s substantial rights.

See id. at 534. We further conclude that there is no merit to the contention of either defendant that his plea was involuntary. See North

Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 31 (1970); United States v. DeFusco,

949 F.2d 114, 119-20 (4th Cir. 1991). 

IV

We therefore affirm. With respect to Featherstone and Robinson,

we have, as required by Anders, reviewed the entire record and have

found no meritorious issues for appeal. This court requires that counsel inform their clients, in writing, of their 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 to with4 UNITED STATES v. FEATHERSTONE
draw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy of

the motion was served on his client. We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before us and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

UNITED STATES v. FEATHERSTONE 5