Case ID: f-appx_290/html/0556-02.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. Demetrie A. YORK, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 08-4422.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Aug. 21, 2008.
    Decided: Aug. 25, 2008.
    
      David B. Betts, Law Offices of David B. Betts, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Arthur Bradley Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Demetrie A. York pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute fifty grams or more of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000). He was sentenced to 122 months of imprisonment and a five-year term of supervised release. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), stating that, in his opinion, there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but raising the issue of whether the district court complied with the requirements of Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 in accepting York’s guilty plea. Although advised of his right to file a pro se brief, York has not done so. We affirm.

York did not move in the district court to withdraw his guilty plea, therefore his challenge to the adequacy of the Rule 11 hearing is reviewed for plain error. See 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 plain error in the district court’s acceptance of York’s guilty plea. See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 119-20 (4th Cir.1991). Moreover, York is bound by the statements he made at the Rule 11 hearing, see Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 74, 97 S.Ct. 1621, 52 L.Ed.2d 136 (1977), and we find no evidence that York’s plea was not knowing or voluntary. See United States v. Marin, 961 F.2d 493, 496 (4th Cir.1992); United States v. Wessells, 936 F.2d 165, 167-68 (4th Cir.1991).

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