United States v. Young , 80 F. App'x 866 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 03-4309
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    GREGORY LAVETTE YOUNG,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Spartanburg.   Margaret B. Seymour, District
    Judge. (CR-02-606)
    Submitted:   October 20, 2003          Decided:     November 17, 2003
    Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    James  Barlow   Loggins, Assistant   Federal  Public  Defender,
    Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Isaac Louis Johnson,
    Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South
    Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Gregory Lavette Young appeals his conviction and sentence for
    a violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 2113
    (a) (2000).        Young’s attorney has
    filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    (1967).     Although counsel states that there are no meritorious
    issues for appeal, he challenges the adequacy of the Fed. R. Crim.
    P. 11 plea colloquy.      The Government elected not to file a formal
    brief.     Although informed of his right to file a supplemental
    brief, Young has not done so.        In accordance with Anders, we have
    considered the brief and examined the entire record for meritorious
    issues.
    Young argues that the district court did not conduct an
    adequate Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 plea colloquy.       Because Young failed
    to object or move to withdraw his guilty plea, we review his plea
    hearing for plain error.      United States v. Martinez, 
    277 F.3d 517
    ,
    524-27 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 
    537 U.S. 899
     (2002).
    The record reveals that the district court explained to Young
    the charges against him, the maximum penalties he faced, the
    applicability of the sentencing guidelines, and the various rights
    he   was   waiving   by   pleading   guilty.   Young    acknowledged   his
    understanding of the court’s explanation, did not object to the
    Government’s factual basis for the plea, and stated that he was
    satisfied with the services of his attorney.           Thus, we find that
    the district court conducted an adequate Rule 11 plea colloquy.
    2
    In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record
    on appeal and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.                 We
    therefore affirm Young’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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 03-4309

Citation Numbers: 80 F. App'x 866

Judges: Hamilton, Michael, Motz, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 11/17/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/6/2023