UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 01-4952

TIBEL CLARK, a/k/a Felix Johnson,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.

C. Weston Houck, District Judge.

(CR-01-56)

Submitted: September 27, 2002

Decided: December 10, 2002

Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Gordon McBride, MCBRIDE LAW FIRM, Hartsville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Assistant United

States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 
OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Tibel Clark appeals from his convictions and 262-month sentence

for conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute

fifty grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§§ 841(a), 846 (2000). Clark’s attorney filed a brief in accordance

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), briefing two issues,

but concluding there was no error. Clark has filed a pro se brief challenging the sentencing court’s career offender determination and

moving for new counsel on appeal. 

The first issue raised in the Anders brief is the adequacy of the

Rule 11 hearing. Because Clark did not move to withdraw his guilty

plea in the district court, this court reviews the Rule 11 proceeding for

plain error. See United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 527 (4th

Cir.), petition for cert. filed, ___ U.S.L.W. ___ (U.S. Apr. 10, 2002)

(No. 02-5170). An appropriately conducted Rule 11 proceeding raises

a strong presumption that the plea is final and binding. United States

v. Puckett, 61 F.3d 1092, 1099 (4th Cir. 1995). The record establishes

the Rule 11 hearing was adequate, and the district court did not err

in accepting Clark’s guilty plea. See United States v. DeFusco, 949

F.2d 114, 117, 120 (4th Cir. 1991). 

The second issue Clark’s counsel raises is whether the district court

erred in sentencing Clark as a career offender based on two prior convictions that occurred on separate occasions in May and December

1990. The argument made on Clark’s behalf is that these offenses

should have been considered related according to USSG § 4A1.2,

comment. (n.3). We review the sentencing court’s findings of fact

related to sentencing for clear error and give deference to its application of the Sentencing Guidelines to the facts. See United States v.

Cutler, 36 F.3d 406, 407 (4th Cir. 1994). 

Prior convictions are not considered related if the offenses were

separated by an intervening arrest. § 4A1.2, comment. (n.3). Even

prior cases that have been consolidated for sentencing are not

exempted from this rule. United States v. Huggins, 191 F.3d 532, 539

(4th Cir. 1999). The record reflects that Clark was arrested indepen2 UNITED STATES v. CLARK
dently for each charge on July 18, 1990 and December 5, 1990.

Therefore, this claim is meritless. 

In his pro se filing, Clark asserts he was improperly sentenced as

a career offender because one of the predicate convictions did not

exist. We find no plain error in this respect. See United States v.

Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-32 (1993). 

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

have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm

Clark’s conviction and sentence and deny his motion to relieve or

substitute counsel. 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

UNITED STATES v. CLARK 3