US v. David Anderson, No. 07-5092 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-5092 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DAVID RAHEEM ANDERSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (6:07-cr-00252-HFF-1) Submitted: March 16, 2009 Decided: March 31, 2009 Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David W. Plowden, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Maxwell B. Cauthen, III, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: David Raheem Anderson pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(e) (2006), and was sentenced to the minimum term of 180 months imprisonment. statutory mandatory Counsel for Anderson has filed this appeal pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but suggesting the district court erred in sentencing Anderson pursuant to the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) ( ACCA ), because the prior convictions used to support that designation were not set forth in the indictment. We have reviewed the record and, finding no error, we affirm. A defendant convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm who has three prior convictions for violent felony or serious drug offenses is subject to treatment as an armed career criminal. may enhance a See 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1). sentence based on the A district court fact of a prior conviction, whether or not it was admitted by the defendant or found by a jury. United States v. Thompson, 421 F.3d 278, 282 (4th Cir. 2005). Therefore, a district court may determine if a defendant has been convicted of the predicate offenses required by the ACCA so long as the facts necessary to support the enhancement inhere in the fact of conviction rather than being extraneous to it. Id. at 283. 2 In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 242-44 (1998), convictions elements are of indictment. an the Supreme merely Court held sentencing offense, and that prior enhancements need not be felony rather charged in than an Because the Government was not required to charge Anderson s prior felony convictions in the indictment, the sole issue raised in Anderson s Anders brief fails. Pursuant to Anders, we have reviewed the entirety of the record and found no meritorious issues. * The district court conducted a proper and thorough Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing prior to accepting Anderson s guilty plea. advised Anderson guilty, the offense. of charge Moreover, the rights against at he him, both was and the The district court foregoing the Rule by penalties 11 hearing pleading for and the at sentencing, the district court proceeded with the utmost caution to ensure that Anderson understood the 180-month statutory mandatory minimum he faced if sentenced pursuant to the ACCA, and the district court subsequently sentenced Anderson to that term. * At the direction of the court, the parties provided supplemental briefing on the issue of whether juvenile convictions may be used to support the Armed Career Criminal offender designation. In the supplemental briefs, the parties agreed that the convictions relied on in Anderson's case were not juvenile convictions. Therefore, the court need not further consider this issue. 3 Because there was no error in either the conviction or sentence, we affirm the district court s judgment. that counsel inform Anderson, in writing, of Supreme Court the United States of We require the right for to petition the further review. If Anderson 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 Anderson. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately set forth in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
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.
