UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 01-4453

SAMMIE LAMONT MCCOLLOUGH, a/k/a

Mont, a/k/a Sam,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill.

Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge.

(CR-00-672-DWS)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 01-4454

SAMMIE LAMONT MCCOLLOUGH, a/k/a

Mont, a/k/a Sam,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia.

Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge.

(CR-00-870-DWS)

Submitted: January 17, 2002

Decided: January 30, 2002

Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

John H. Hare, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia, South

Carolina, for Appellant. Marshall Prince, OFFICE OF THE UNITED

STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Sammie Lamont McCollough pled guilty to one count of bank robbery and one count of armed bank robbery, in violation of 18

U.S.C.A. § 2113(a) & (d) (West 2000). He was sentenced to 160

months on each count, to run concurrently. Counsel for McCollough

has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 368 U.S. 738

(1967), raising two issues on appeal but stating that, in his view, there

are no meritorious issues for appeal. McCollough was informed of his

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

McCollough seeks review of his guilty plea hearing for compliance

with Fed. R. Crim P. 11. McCollough pled guilty to both charges

before a magistrate judge. McCollough signed a written waiver of his

right to have his plea accepted by the district court and verbally

affirmed that waiver at his Rule 11 hearing. Our review of the relevant hearing transcripts discloses that the court complied with Rule

11. 

McCollough also sought review of his sentence. The sentence was

imposed within the sentencing guideline range as determined in the

Presentence Report, to which no objections were filed. A review of

2 UNITED STATES v. MCCOLLOUGH
the Presentence Report and the sentencing hearing did not reveal an

inappropriate sentence imposed by the district court. Finally, the sentence was within the range prescribed by the statute of conviction. 

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

this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm McCollough’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. 

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 in the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED

UNITED STATES v. MCCOLLOUGH 3