US v. Levar Brown, No. 12-4678 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4678 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LEVAR VINCENT BROWN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. G. Steven Agee, Circuit Judge, sitting by designation; Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (7:12-cr-00026-SGW-1) Submitted: February 22, 2013 Decided: March 22, 2013 Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wade T. Anderson, FRITH ANDERSON & PEAKE, P.C., Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. Thomas T. Cullen, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Levar Vincent Brown appeals his conviction and 120month armed career criminal sentence imposed following his guilty plea to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. ยง 922(g)(1) (2006). On appeal, Brown s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether Brown s guilty plea was knowing and voluntary. Brown was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but did not file one. Finding no error, we affirm. The sole issue raised in the Anders brief is whether Brown s guilty plea was knowing and voluntary. Our review of the plea hearing reveals that the district court substantially complied with Rule 11 in conducting the plea colloquy, and committed no error warranting correction on plain error review. See United States v. General, 278 F.3d 389, 393 (4th Cir. 2002) (providing standard of review); United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 district (1993) court (detailing did not err plain error in finding standard). Brown s Thus, guilty the plea knowing and voluntary. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court s judgment. 2 This court requires that counsel inform Brown, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Brown requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Brown. legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and conclusions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 3