US v. Henry Jordan, No. 15-4641 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-4641 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. HENRY JAMES JORDAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:15-cr-00109-CCE-2) Submitted: May 31, 2016 Decided: June 3, 2016 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark A. Jones, BELL, DAVIS & PITT, PA, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Dana James Boente, Acting United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, Graham Tod Green, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Henry James Jordan pled guilty in accordance with a written plea agreement to bank robbery § 2113(a), and § 2 (2012). in violation of 18 U.S.C. He was sentenced to 77 months of imprisonment, the bottom of his properly calculated Sentencing Guidelines range. brief in Jordan appeals and his attorney has filed a accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning whether he knowingly and voluntarily pled guilty, but concluding that there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Jordan was advised of the right supplemental brief but has failed to do so. to file a pro se We affirm. Because Jordan did not attempt to withdraw his guilty plea in the district court, we review this issue for plain error, see United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 527 (4th Cir. 2002) (stating standard), and find none. hearing reveals it was conducted A review of Jordan’s plea in compliance with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 and that he knowingly and voluntarily pled guilty. Pursuant to Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Jordan, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Jordan requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move 2 in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Jordan. legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials 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.
