UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-4362

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

CLINTON CAVER, III,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief

District Judge. (CR-02-38)

Submitted: March 15, 2004 Decided: April 7, 2004

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Walter H. Paramore, III, LAW OFFICES OF W. H. PARAMORE, III, P.C.,

Jacksonville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne Margaret Hayes,

Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Clinton Caver, III, appeals his 190-month sentence,

pursuant to his guilty plea to possession of a firearm as a

convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(e)

(2000). Caver’s counsel has filed an appeal under Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising two sentencing issues.

This Court reviews a sentencing court’s factual findings for clear

error and its related legal conclusions, including the application

of the Sentencing Guidelines, de novo. United States v. Daughtrey,

874 F.2d 213, 217 (4th Cir. 1989).

First, Caver asserts his prior convictions for felony

breaking and entering, and felony larceny after breaking and

entering, are crimes against property, and do not qualify as crimes

of violence and cannot serve as a predicate for sentencing as an

armed career criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) (2000). Caver’s

claim is meritless. Caver’s prior offenses qualified him for

sentencing under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). U.S. Sentencing Guidelines

Manual § 4B1.4(a) (2002); 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) (2000); Taylor v.

United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990); United States v. Bowden, 975

F.2d 1080, 1083 (4th Cir. 1992). 

Second, Caver asserts the district court should have

directed that his federal sentence for the instant offense run

concurrent to his state sentence for breaking and entering, and

larceny of a residence from which he stole the firearms he pleaded
- 3 -

guilty to possessing in the instant offense. Caver’s claim is

meritless. Caver’s criminal history increased his offense level

for the instant offense, but the offense conduct of his prior state

conviction was not calculated as relevant conduct towards his

instant offense, and accordingly, he cannot prevail on this claim.

USSG § 5G1.3 (2002).

Accordingly, we affirm Caver’s conviction and sentence.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in

this case and find no other meritorious issues for appeal. 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