Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 108 views

    United States v. James Cothran, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding Defendant James Douglas Cothran's appeal of his 151-month sentence for bank robbery. Cothran's counsel argued there was no legal basis for appeal but questioned whether the district court erred in sentencing Cothran as a career offender. The Court of Appeals found that the district court properly classified Cothran as a career offender under the sentencing guidelines based on his criminal history. The court affirmed the district court's judgment.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. James Cothran, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    108 views3 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding Defendant James Douglas Cothran's appeal of his 151-month sentence for bank robbery. Cothran's counsel argued there was no legal basis for appeal but questioned whether the district court erred in sentencing Cothran as a career offender. The Court of Appeals found that the district court properly classified Cothran as a career offender under the sentencing guidelines based on his criminal history. The court affirmed the district court's judgment.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2011-07-29 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 10-5236

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding Defendant James Douglas Cothran's appeal of his 151-month sentence for bank robbery. Cothran's counsel argued there was no legal basis for appeal but questioned whether the district court erred in sentencing Cothran as a career offender. The Court of Appeals found that the district court properly classified Cothran as a career offender under the sentencing guidelines based on his criminal history. The court affirmed the district court's judgment.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    108 views3 pages

    United States v. James Cothran, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding Defendant James Douglas Cothran's appeal of his 151-month sentence for bank robbery. Cothran's counsel argued there was no legal basis for appeal but questioned whether the district court erred in sentencing Cothran as a career offender. The Court of Appeals found that the district court properly classified Cothran as a career offender under the sentencing guidelines based on his criminal history. The court affirmed the district court's judgment.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 10-5236

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff Appellee,
    v.
    JAMES DOUGLAS COTHRAN,
    Defendant Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger,
    District Judge. (1:10-cr-00009-MR-1)

    Submitted:

    July 8, 2011

    Decided:

    July 29, 2011

    Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Eric C. Bohnet, ERIC C. BOHNET, ATTORNEY AT LAW, Indianapolis,


    Indiana, for Appellant.
    Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United
    States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    James
    151-month

    Douglas

    sentence

    Cothran

    imposed

    appeals

    following

    the

    his

    district

    conviction

    robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2113(a) (2006).

    courts
    for

    bank

    Cothrans

    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

    the

    district

    sentencing Cothran as a career offender.

    court

    erred

    in

    Cothran was advised of

    his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but did not file
    one.

    Finding no reversible error, we affirm.


    The sole issue raised in the Anders brief is whether

    the

    district

    offender.

    court

    erred

    in

    sentencing

    Cothran

    as

    career

    To qualify as a career offender: (1) the defendant

    must have been at least eighteen years old at the time of the
    offense of conviction; (2) the offense of conviction must have
    been a felony crime of violence or controlled substance offense;
    and

    (3)

    the

    convictions
    offenses.

    defendant
    for

    crimes

    must
    of

    have

    at

    violence

    least
    or

    two

    prior

    controlled

    felony

    substance

    U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (USSG) 4B1.1(a)

    (2010).
    The term two prior felony convictions means (1) the
    defendant committed the instant offense of conviction
    subsequent
    to
    sustaining
    at
    least
    two
    felony
    convictions of either a crime of violence or a
    controlled substance offense . . . , and (2) the
    sentences for at least two of the aforementioned

    felony convictions are counted separately


    provisions of 4A1.1(a), (b), or (c).
    USSG

    4B1.2(c).

    [P]rior

    sentences

    are

    under

    counted

    the

    separately

    unless (A) the sentences resulted from offenses contained in the


    same charging instrument; or (B) the sentences were imposed on
    the same day.

    USSG 4A1.2(a)(2).

    Upon de novo review, we

    conclude that the district court properly sentenced Cothran as a


    See United States v. Farrior, 535 F.3d 210,

    career offender.

    223 (4th Cir. 2008) (stating standard of review).


    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 courts judgment.

    This court

    requires that counsel inform Cothran, in writing, of his right


    to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
    review.

    If

    Cothran

    requests

    counsel

    believes

    that

    counsel

    may

    in

    move

    representation.

    such
    this

    that
    a

    petition

    petition

    court

    for

    would

    leave

    to

    be
    be

    filed,

    but

    frivolous,

    withdraw

    from

    Counsels motion must state that a copy thereof

    was served on Cothran.

    We dispense with oral argument because

    the facts and legal conclusions are adequately presented in the


    materials

    before

    the

    court

    and

    argument

    would

    not

    aid

    the

    decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like