UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-4503

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

BOB HILL, a/k/a Shawn, a/k/a Marcos Leon,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.

(CR-03-280)

Submitted: March 30, 2006 Decided: April 5, 2006

Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cameron B. Littlejohn, Jr., Columbia, South Carolina, for

Appellant. Arthur Bradley Parham, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES

ATTORNEY, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
1

While Hill objected in the district court to the application

of the § 841(b)(1)(B) enhanced penalties to his sentence, we find

the district court properly determined that Hill was subject to the

enhanced penalties based on the fact of his prior felony drug

convictions, which Hill did not contest. See United States v.

Thompson, 421 F.3d 278, 282, 283-86 (4th Cir. 2005), cert. denied,

___ U.S. , 2006 WL 521274 (U.S. Mar. 6, 2006) (No. 05-7266);

United States v. Cheek, 415 F.3d 349, 354 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,

126 S. Ct. 640 (2005). The calculated guideline range in this case

was less than the mandatory statutory minimum.

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Bob Hill pled guilty to a single count of possessing with

the intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine, in violation

of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) (2000). The district court

sentenced Hill to the mandatory statutory minimum sentence for a

violation of § 841(b)(1)(B) of 120 months’ imprisonment, eight

years of supervised release, and ordered payment of a $100

statutory assessment.1

 Hill’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant

to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there

are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioning whether the

district court complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, and whether the

sentence imposed was reasonable. Hill was given an opportunity to

file a pro se brief, but has failed to do so.

Hill did not move in the district court to withdraw his

guilty plea, therefore his challenge to the adequacy of the Rule 11

hearing is reviewed for plain error. See United States v.

Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). We have carefully

reviewed the transcript of the Rule 11 hearing and find no plain
2We note specifically that the district court informed Hill

during his plea colloquy that he was subject to a ten year

statutorily-mandated minimum sentence, and Hill stated that he

nonetheless wished to plead guilty.

- 3 -

error in the district court’s acceptance of Hill’s guilty plea.2

See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 119-20 (4th Cir. 1991).

Moreover, because the district court properly determined that Hill

was subject to the enhanced penalties as set forth in

§ 841(b)(1)(B), we find that its imposition of a sentence at the

statutory mandatory minimum was patently reasonable because it was

required by statute. See United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540,

546-47 (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 Hill’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.
- 4 -

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