Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cecil Lamont STOKES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-03-17
Citations: 89 F. App'x 849
Docket Number: No. 03-4720
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cecil Lamont STOKES, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 89
Pages: 849–850

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cecil Lamont STOKES, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-4720.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted March 11, 2004.
Decided March 17, 2004.
Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, William S. Trivette, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Angela Hewlett Miller, Office of the United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Cecil Lamont Stokes pled guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement to one count of interference with commerce and one count of brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951 and 924(c)(l)(A)(ii)(2000). The district court sentenced Stokes to 162 months in prison. Stokes timely appealed.
Stokes's appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), raising one issue: whether the district court abused its discretion in sentencing Stokes within the appropriate sentencing guidelines range. Stokes has filed a pro se supplemental brief arguing that the district court improperly enhanced his sentence and that the Government had no jurisdiction over his case. The Government has elected not to file a brief.
We have reviewed the arguments presented by Anders counsel and by Stokes and conclude they are without merit. Additionally, we have independently reviewed the entire record in this case in accordance with Anders and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Stokes's conviction and sentence. 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.
We deny counsel's motion to withdraw at this time. This court requires that Anders 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, counsel may then move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel's motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client.
AFFIRMED