UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-4091

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

JAMES CALVIN JACKSON, 

 Defendant – Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. 

(4:06-cr-00760-RBH-1) 

Submitted: September 30, 2008 Decided: October 21, 2008 

Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

William F. Nettles, IV, Assistant Federal Public Defender, 

Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. Alfred William Walker 

Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

 Pursuant to a plea agreement, James Calvin Jackson 

pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 922(g)(1), 924 (West 2000 & Supp. 

2008). He received an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career 

Criminal Act (“ACCA”), 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(e) (West 2000 & Supp. 

2008). Jackson timely appealed. 

 Jackson’s attorney has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the 

adequacy of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing and his sentence 

enhancement under the ACCA. Counsel states, however, that he 

has found no meritorious grounds for appeal. Jackson filed a 

pro se supplemental brief asking the court to take into 

consideration that he has a family to support and explaining the 

circumstances surrounding his possession of the firearms. 

Finding no meritorious grounds for appeal, we affirm. 

 Because Jackson did not move in the district court to 

withdraw his guilty plea, any error in the Rule 11 hearing is 

reviewed for plain error. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 

517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002) (discussing standard). Our careful 

review of the record convinces us that the district court 

complied with the mandates of Rule 11 in accepting Jackson’s 

guilty plea and ensured that Jackson entered his plea knowingly 

and voluntarily and that the plea was supported by an 

2 
independent factual basis. United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 

114, 116, 119-20 (4th Cir. 1991). 

 Next, Jackson asserts that the ACCA enhancement 

violated his Sixth Amendment rights because his prior 

convictions, upon which the court based the enhancement, were 

not charged in the indictment, proved beyond a reasonable doubt, 

or admitted by him. As counsel acknowledges, this court 

rejected the same argument in United States v. Cheek, 415 F.3d 

349, 352-54 (4th Cir. 2005); see also United States v. Thompson, 

421 F.3d 278, 283 (4th Cir. 2005). 

 In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record 

in this case and considered Jackson’s pro se supplemental brief 

and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, 

we affirm Jackson’s conviction and sentence. 

 This court requires that counsel inform Jackson, in 

writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the 

United States for further review. If Jackson 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 Jackson. We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

3 
4 

adequately presented in the materials before the court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED