US v. Ollie Pettiford, No. 11-4097 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-4097 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. OLLIE OCTAVIOUS PETTIFORD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:09-cr-00378-WO-1) Submitted: September 29, 2011 Decided: October 4, 2011 Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stacy D. Rubain, QUANDER & RUBAIN, P.A., Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anand P. Ramaswamy, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ollie Octavious Pettiford pled guilty to possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a felony offense, in violation possession of of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), a stolen firearm, §§ 922(j), 924(a)(2) (2006). to 180 months imprisonment. in 924(e)(1) violation (2006), of 18 and U.S.C. The district court sentenced him Pettiford s attorney filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that, in counsel s view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal, sentenced as but an questioning armed whether career Pettiford criminal. was properly Pettiford filed a supplemental pro se brief, also contesting his classification as an armed career criminal. Finding no reversible error, we affirm Pettiford s conviction and sentence. A person who violates 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and has three prior convictions for a violent felony offense qualifies as an armed career criminal and minimum sentence of fifteen years. is subject to a mandatory See 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1). Our review of the record shows that Pettiford had three prior qualifying convictions. The district court therefore correctly determined that Pettiford qualified as an armed career criminal and his advisory Guidelines range was properly calculated at 180 to 210 months. 2 The district court considered the sentencing factors in light determined of Pettiford s that the characteristics 180-month mandatory and minimum sufficient to serve the goals of sentencing. this sentence was reasonable. history and sentence was We conclude that See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); see United States v. Llamas, 599 F.3d 381, 387 (4th Cir. 2010). We have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. affirm the district court s judgment. Accordingly we This court requires that counsel inform Pettiford, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. Pettiford requests that a petition be filed, but If counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in representation. this court for leave to withdraw from Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Pettiford. 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.
