United States v. Smith , 204 F. App'x 298 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                                 UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 06-4103
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    GARRETT DON SMITH,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
    Judge. (6:04-cr-00466-GRA)
    Submitted:    October 4, 2006                 Decided:   October 31, 2006
    Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Ray Coit Yarborough, Jr., Florence, 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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
    Pursuant to a plea agreement, Garrett Don Smith pled
    guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than
    fifty grams of actual methamphetamine, more than 500 grams of
    methamphetamine, and a quantity of Ecstasy, in violation of 
    21 U.S.C. § 846
     (2000).   The district court sentenced him to a 135-
    month term of imprisonment.    Smith’s counsel has filed a brief
    pursuant to Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967), challenging
    the adequacy of the plea colloquy but stating that, in his view,
    there are no meritorious issues for appeal.   Smith was advised of
    his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so.
    We affirm.
    Counsel raises as a potential issue the adequacy of the
    plea colloquy in light of the district court’s failure to inform
    Smith that any false statement could be used against him in a
    prosecution for perjury, see Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1)(A); that he
    could persist in his plea of not guilty, see Fed. R. Crim. P.
    11(b)(1)(B); that he had the right to counsel, see Fed. R. Crim. P.
    11(b)(1)(D); and that he had the right to compel the attendance of
    witnesses, see Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1)(E). Because Smith did not
    move in the district court to withdraw his guilty plea on the
    grounds raised on appeal, any error in the Rule 11 hearing is
    reviewed for plain error. United States v. Martinez, 
    277 F.3d 517
    ,
    525 (4th Cir. 2002) (discussing standard of review).   Our careful
    - 2 -
    review of the record on appeal convinces us that the district
    court’s omissions did not affect Smith’s substantial rights.                    See
    id.; United States v. Goins, 
    51 F.3d 400
    , 402 (4th Cir. 1995)
    (discussing factors courts should consider in determining whether
    substantial rights affected in decision to plead guilty).
    In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
    record    for   any    meritorious      issues      and     have    found     none.
    Accordingly, we affirm Smith’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: 06-4103

Citation Numbers: 204 F. App'x 298

Judges: Duncan, Gregory, Michael, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 10/31/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023