United States v. McNeff, 4th Cir. (2007) | PDF | Government Information | United States Federal Case Law
Scribd Logo

Language

Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

United States v. McNeff, 4th Cir. (2007)

Uploaded by

Scribd Government Docs
11 views3 pages
Filed: 2007-02-20 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 06-4953

Copyright

© Public Domain

Available Formats

PDF or read online from Scribd

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Report this Document
Filed: 2007-02-20 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 06-4953

Copyright:

Public Domain
Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
Flag for inappropriate content
11 views3 pages

United States v. McNeff, 4th Cir. (2007)

Uploaded by

Scribd Government Docs
Filed: 2007-02-20 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 06-4953

Copyright:

Public Domain
Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
Flag for inappropriate content
of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-4953

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JEFFERY AUSTIN MCNEFF,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (3:05-cr-00369)

Submitted: February 15, 2007

Decided: February 20, 2007

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Angela Parrott, Federal Defenders of Western North Carolina, Inc.,


Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant.
C. Nicks Williams,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:
Jeffery

Austin

McNeff

pled

guilty

to

one

count

of

possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a crime


punishable by more than one year of imprisonment in violation of 18
U.S.C. 922(g) (2000).

The district court determined that McNeff

qualified for sentencing as an armed career criminal and sentenced


him to the statutory minimum 180 months of imprisonment.

On

appeal, counsel filed an Anders* brief, in which she states that


there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but suggests that the
district court erred in sentencing McNeff as an armed career
criminal.

McNeff has filed a pro se supplemental brief in which he

repeats counsels assertion and raises other claims related to his


conviction and sentence.
In

considering

We affirm.
whether

the

district

court

properly

designated McNeff as an armed career criminal, this court reviews


the district courts legal determinations de novo and its factual
findings for clear error. United States v. Wardrick, 350 F.3d 446,
451 (4th Cir. 2003).

Our review of the record leads us to conclude

that no error occurred in applying the armed career criminal


statute in this case.

United States v. Thompson, 421 F.3d 278, 284

(4th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1463 (2006).


In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).


- 2 -

appeal.

We have considered the arguments asserted in McNeffs pro

se supplemental brief and find them to be without merit.


therefore affirm McNeffs conviction and sentence.

We

This court

requires that counsel inform McNeff, in writing, of the right to


petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review.
If McNeff 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.

Counsels

motion must state that a copy thereof was served on McNeff.

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

- 3 -

You might also like