United States v. McAllister , 215 F. App'x 211 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4800
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
KEITH ANDRE MCALLISTER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(4:05-cr-00195-TLW)
Submitted: January 25, 2007 Decided: January 29, 2007
Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William F. Nettles, IV, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. Alfred William Walker
Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Keith Andre McAllister pled guilty to conspiracy to
possess with intent to distribute more than 100 grams of heroin, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000). The district court sentenced
McAllister to the statutory mandatory minimum sentence of 120
months, see 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 841(b)(1)(B), 851 (West 2000 & Supp.
2006), and ordered it to run consecutively to the sentence imposed
upon the revocation of his supervised release for a prior offense.
McAllister’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that, in his view, there
are no meritorious issues for appeal but challenging the adequacy
of the plea colloquy and the consecutive nature of the sentence.
McAllister was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental
brief but has not done so. We affirm.
Counsel questions whether the district court complied
with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting McAllister’s guilty plea.
Because McAllister did not move to withdraw his guilty plea, we
review his challenge to the adequacy of the Rule 11 hearing for
plain error. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th
Cir. 2002). We have carefully reviewed the transcript of the
Rule 11 hearing and find no error in the district court’s
acceptance of McAllister’s guilty plea. See United States v.
DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 119-20 (4th Cir. 1991).
- 2 -
Counsel also raises as a potential issue the consecutive
nature of the sentence imposed by the district court. Because
counsel failed to object in the district court, we review the claim
only for plain error. See United States v. Robinson, 460 F.3d 550,
557 (4th Cir. 2006) (discussing standard of review). We find no
error in the district court’s decision to run the 120-month
sentence consecutively to the sentence imposed upon the revocation
of McAllister’s supervised release. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines
Manual § 5G1.3(c) & comment. n.3(C) (2005).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record for any meritorious issues and have found none.
Accordingly, we affirm McAllister’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 -