United States v. Parker , 230 F. App'x 272 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4857
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
NILGEL RAYSHAD PARKER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief
District Judge. (3:05-cr-00453-JFA)
Submitted: June 15, 2007 Decided: June 19, 2007
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert M.P. Masella, MASELLA LAW FIRM, P.A., Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellant. Mark C. Moore, Assistant United States
Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Nilgel Rayshad Parker pled guilty pursuant to a plea
agreement to one count of making false declarations before a grand
jury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623(a), (c) (2000). Parker was
sentenced by the district court to sixty months’ imprisonment.
Finding no error, we affirm.
On appeal, counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there were no
meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioning whether the
district court fully complied with the requirements of Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11. Although Parker was notified of his right to file a
pro se supplemental brief, he did not do so, and the Government
elected not to file a responsive brief.
Because Parker did not seek to withdraw his guilty plea
in the district court, we review any alleged Rule 11 error for
plain error. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 524-26 (4th
Cir. 2002). To establish plain error, Parker must show that an
error occurred, that the error was plain, and that the error
affected his substantial rights. United States v. White, 405 F.3d
208, 215 (4th Cir. 2005). We have reviewed the record and find no
error.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
- 2 -
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 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 in the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -