US v. Brown, No. 06-5112 (4th Cir. 2007)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-5112 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ISSAC JERMAINE BROWN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (8:06-cr-00246) Submitted: August 30, 2007 Decided: September 5, 2007 Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Andrew Mackenzie, BARRETT MACKENZIE, L.L.C., Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Maxwell Barnes Cauthen, III, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Issac Jermaine Brown appeals his conviction following his guilty plea to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. His attorney filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Brown s Anders brief raises the issue of whether his plea was knowing and voluntary. Brown filed a supplemental pro se brief raising the issues of whether the Armed Career Criminal Act was applied in error to his sentence and whether counsel was ineffective for conviction file. brief. allegedly failing to examine Brown s prior The Government has declined to file a responding Finding no reversible error, we affirm. Brown suggests that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary. Brown never sought to withdraw his guilty plea, and we therefore review his allegations for plain error. See United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525-26 (4th Cir. 2002). The district court ensured that Brown fully understood the significance of his guilty plea and that the plea was knowing and voluntary. The district court satisfactorily complied with its Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 obligations, and we therefore reject Brown s challenge to the integrity of his guilty plea. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal, including those advanced by Brown in his supplemental pro se brief. We therefore affirm Brown s conviction and sentence. - 2 - 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 representation. in this court for leave to withdraw from 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 - 3 -
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
