United States of America v. LINDSEY LEE ROBINSON, JR., a/k/a Lindsey Robertson

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4823
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
LINDSEY LEE ROBINSON, JR., a/k/a Lindsey
Robertson,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
District Judge. (CR-03-426)
Submitted: July 14, 2005 Decided: July 21, 2005
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ames C. Chamberlin, LAW OFFICES OF AMES C. CHAMBERLIN, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States
Attorney, Michael Augustus DeFranco, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Lindsay Lee Robinson, Jr., appeals his conviction and
sentence for one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted
felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2).
Robinson’s attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that, in his opinion,
there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Although concluding
that such allegations lacked merit, counsel asserts that Robinson’s
sentence violates Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004).
Although Robinson was informed of his right to file a pro se
supplemental brief, he did not do so. Finding no reversible error,
we affirm.
In the Anders brief, counsel asserts that the district
court erred when it enhanced Robinson’s sentence based on facts not
present in the indictment, proved to a jury by a reasonable doubt,
or admitted by the defendant. However, Robinson’s offense level
was not increased by any fact he did not admit in his factual basis
to his guilty plea.
Counsel also questions the validity of Almendarez-
Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), in light of Blakely,
asserting that the district court erred when it calculated
Robinson’s criminal history category based on facts not present in
the indictment, found by a jury by a reasonable doubt, or admitted
by the defendant. We find this claim meritless.

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm Robinson’s conviction and sentence.
This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of
his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If the client 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 the client.
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 of 3 --