US v. Timothy Webster, No. 09-4761 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-4761 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TIMOTHY JAMES WEBSTER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:09-cr-00048-NCT-1) Submitted: March 5, 2010 Decided: March 23, 2010 Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, William S. Trivette, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Lisa Blue Boggs, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Timothy firearm after Webster having punishable by a violation of term 18 pleaded guilty previously of been possession convicted imprisonment U.S.C. to of §§ 922(g)(1), exceeding 924(e) a one of a crime year, (2006). in The district court sentenced Webster to 200 months of imprisonment and Webster now appeals. His attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising one issue but stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Webster filed additional issues. * In the a pro se supplemental brief raising We affirm. Anders brief, counsel questions whether the district court erred in finding that Webster was an armed career criminal under the Armed Career Criminal Act ( ACCA ), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). In an appeal premised upon indistinguishable facts, this court has previously rejected a similar challenge, United States v. Clark, 993 F.2d 402 (4th Cir. 1993), thus establishing circuit States v. authority Collins, binding 415 F.3d on subsequent 304, 311 (4th panels. Cir. United 2005) ( A decision of a panel of this court becomes the law of the circuit and is binding on other panels unless it is overruled by a * We have considered the claims raised in Webster s pro se brief and conclude the claims lack merit. 2 subsequent en banc opinion of this court or a superseding contrary decision of the Supreme Court. ) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Therefore, this claim fails. We have examined the entire record in accordance with the requirements of Anders and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court. This writing, of court the requires right to that petition United States for further review. counsel the inform Supreme Webster, Court of in the If Webster 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 Webster. 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.
