
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cheree Ann COCKRELL, a/k/a, Cheree Ann Helms, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 06-4337.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Oct. 31, 2006.
    Decided: Nov. 3, 2006.
    Louis Carr Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, William S. Trivette, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Robert Albert Jamison Lang, Office of the United States Attorney, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Cheree Ann Cockrell pled guilty without a plea agreement to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000). The district court sentenced Cockrell as an armed career criminal pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1) (2000), which carries a statutory mandatory minimum sentence of fifteen years’ imprisonment. Cockrell received the minimum 180 months’ imprisonment.

On appeal, Cockrell’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), asserting that there exist no meritorious issues for appeal but contending that the district court imposed an unreasonable sentence because Cockrell has been rehabilitated, and no further punishment is necessary. However, as noted by both the district court and Cockrell’s counsel, the term of imprisonment imposed in this case is the mandatory minimum sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1). Because the district court could not have given a lower sentence under the terms of the statute, the sentence is not unreasonable.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Cockrell’s conviction and sentence. This court requires counsel inform his client, in writing, of her 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 
      
       Although notified of her right to do so, Cockrell has not submitted a pro se supplemental brief.
     