United States v. Mendez , 102 F. App'x 266 ( 2004 )

Vacated by Supreme Court, January 24, 2005
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-4713
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
LLOYD MENDEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(CR-02-184)
Submitted: November 26, 2003 Decided: June 7, 2004
Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christopher J. Moran, LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER J. MORAN, Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellant. James Strom Thurmond, Jr., United
States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina; Lee Ellis Berlinsky,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Lloyd Mendez appeals from his conviction and 240-month
sentence. Mendez pleaded guilty to possession with intent to
distribute and to distribute fifty grams or more of cocaine base,
in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) (2000). Mendez’s
counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967), stating that, in his view, there are no meritorious
grounds for appeal, but raising the issue as to whether the
magistrate judge complied with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of
Criminal Procedure in accepting Mendez’s guilty plea. Mendez has
filed a pro se supplemental brief. Finding no reversible error, we
affirm.
On appeal, counsel questions whether the magistrate judge
properly conducted the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 colloquy, specifically
raising the issue as to whether the magistrate judge adequately
informed Mendez regarding the potential length of his sentence.
This court indulges a strong presumption that a plea is final and
binding if the Rule 11 hearing is adequate. United States v.
Puckett, 61 F.3d 1092, 1099 (4th Cir. 1999). We have reviewed the
transcript of the hearing conducted before the magistrate judge and
are satisfied that Mendez was afforded the protections of Rule 11.
See United States v. Osborne, 345 F.3d 281, 285 (2003) (holding
that taking guilty plea is permissible as an “additional duty” for
a magistrate judge). Furthermore, a review of the record indicates
- 2 -
that the magistrate judge did inform Mendez of the potential length
of his sentence and Mendez stated that he understood. This claim
is therefore without merit.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We further conclude that the claims raised in Mendez’s pro
se supplemental brief are without merit. We therefore affirm
Mendez’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 -