Case ID: f-appx_196/html/0152-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Brenda Gail COGGINS, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 05-5254.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Aug. 24, 2006.
    Decided: Aug. 28, 2006.
    Janis Richardson Hall, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. David Calhoun Stephens, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 86(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Brenda Gail Coggins appeals her conviction and 84-month sentence pursuant to her guilty plea to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and distribution of controlled substances, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), (b)(1)(D), 846 (2000).

Counsel for Coggins has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), in which counsel states there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but presenting one issue for our review. Although notified of her right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Coggins has not done so.

Counsel suggests that the district court did not comply with Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 in accepting Coggins’ guilty plea. Because Coggins did not seek to withdraw her guilty plea in the district court, our review is for plain error. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir.2002). We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court’s plea hearing was fully compliant with Rule 11.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Coggins’s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Coggins, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Coggins 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 Coggins.

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.