UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 02-4198

BILL WINFIELD CONARD,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville.

G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge.

(CR-01-286)

Submitted: November 22, 2002

Decided: January 27, 2003

Before MICHAEL, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Louis H. Lang, CALLISON, TIGHE & ROBINSON, L.L.P., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Elizabeth Jean Howard, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 
OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Bill Winfield Conard was convicted of armed bank robbery (Count

1), under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), (d) & (e) (2000), using and carrying

a firearm in relation to a crime of violence (Count 2), under 18 U.S.C.

§ 924(c) (2000), and possession of a firearm by a felon having three

previous violent felonies (Count 3), under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g),

924(e) (2000). Conard received a life sentence for Count 1, a fiveyear consecutive sentence for Count 2, and a fifteen-year concurrent

sentence for Count 3. 

On appeal, Conard’s counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), alleging that there are no meritorious

claims on appeal but raising the following issues, whether the district

court: (1) erred by denying Conard’s motion to suppress evidence

found in the car; (2) erred by denying Conard’s motion for acquittal

on the grounds of insufficient evidence; and (3) erred by finding that

Conard was subject to a mandatory life sentence under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3559(c)(1) (2000). For the reasons that follow, we affirm. 

First, the district court properly denied Conard’s motion to suppress the search of the vehicle because as a mere passenger, he lacked

a legitimate expectation of privacy in the areas of the vehicle that

were searched. Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 148-49 (1978). Second, there was ample evidence to support Conard’s convictions.

Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942). Finally, the district

court properly determined that Conard was subject to a mandatory life

sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3559(c), which is not affected by the

Supreme Court’s opinion in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466

(2000). 

We have examined the entire record in this case, in accordance

with the requirements of Anders, including the claims raised in Conard’s pro se supplemental brief, and find no meritorious issues for

appeal. Accordingly, we affirm. 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

2 UNITED STATES v. CONARD
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

UNITED STATES v. CONARD 3