United States of America v. Joey Dwayne Justus

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4643
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOEY DWAYNE JUSTUS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (1:15-cr-00079-JAB-1)
Submitted: May 18, 2016 Decided: May 20, 2016
Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, Tiffany T. Jefferson,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Terry Michael Meinecke, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Joey Dwayne Justus pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea
agreement, to possession of firearms by a convicted felon, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (2012). The
district court sentenced Justus to 57 months’ imprisonment, the
bottom of the 57- to 71-month advisory Sentencing Guidelines
range. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no
meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioning whether Justus
had a qualifying prior felony conviction for purposes of
§ 922(g)(1).* Justus was advised of his right to file a pro se
supplemental brief, but has not filed one. The Government
declined to file a brief.
A defendant is guilty of violating § 922(g)(1) if he
possesses a firearm or ammunition after having “been convicted
in any court of[] a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term
exceeding one year.” Justus has a prior North Carolina felony
conviction for attempted breaking or entering for which he
received a 4- to 14-month sentence. Counsel for Justus argues
that, because the North Carolina Justice Reinvestment Act of
2011 required that nine months of that sentence be served on
* Justus preserved this issue for appeal in his conditional
guilty plea.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
postrelease supervision, the state conviction was not punishable
by a term exceeding a year in prison. As counsel for Justus
concedes, this argument is foreclosed by our recent decision in
United States v. Barlow, 811 F.3d 133, 140 (4th Cir. 2015),
petition for cert. filed, No. 15-8925 (U.S. Apr. 8, 2016).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this
case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. This
court requires that counsel inform Justus, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Justus 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 Justus.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --