Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kevin Lee MILLER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-05-02
Citations: 61 F. App'x 890
Docket Number: No. 02-4782
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kevin Lee MILLER, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 61
Pages: 890–891

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kevin Lee MILLER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 02-4782.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted April 24, 2003.
Decided May 2, 2003.
Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, William S. Trivette, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Paul A. Weinman, Assistant United States Attorney, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Kevin Miller appeals his 142-month sentence imposed by the district court following his guilty plea to eight counts of bank robbery and attempted bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) (2000). Counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Additionally, Miller has filed a pro se supplemental brief. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
In counsel's Anders brief, Miller contends the district court erred in including three prior allegedly uncounseled convictions in determining his criminal history level. In assessing challenges to a sentencing court's application of the Sentencing Guidelines, we review factual determinations for clear error and legal issues de novo. United States v. Singh, 54 F.3d 1182, 1190 (4th Cir.1995). The district court, based on Miller's own testimony at his sentencing hearing, found Miller waived his right to counsel in each of the contested convictions. We find no error in this determination.
We have reviewed the additional arguments and issues raised by Miller in his pro se supplemental brief and find them to be without merit. Pursuant to Anders, we have reviewed the record and find no error. Accordingly, we affirm Miller'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 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.