Case ID: f-appx_64/html/0903-01.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. JUVENILE MALE, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 03-4052.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted May 29, 2003.
    Decided June 12, 2003.
    John H. Hare, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Eric William Ruschky, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Juvenile Male pled guilty to committing an act of juvenile delinquency, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 5031 (2000). The district court committed him to official detention for thirty-six months imprisonment, in accordance with 18 U.S.C.A. § 5037 (West 2000 & Supp.2003). Juvenile Male appeals, and his counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Counsel asserts that in his view, there are no meritorious grounds for appeal. However, he raises the issues of whether the district court complied with Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 in accepting the guilty plea, and whether the disposition was in violation of the law or an incorrect application of the Sentencing Guidelines. Juvenile Male, informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, has not done so.

After reviewing the transcript of the plea proceeding, we conclude that the district court fully complied with the requirements of Rule 11 in accepting the guilty plea. As to sentencing, the Sentencing Guidelines are not necessarily applicable in juvenile delinquency proceedings. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.12 (2001). The district court carefully followed the statutory directives in arriving at a disposition in this case. 18 U.S.C. § 5037. Therefore, we find counsel’s claims to be without merit.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. 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 affirm the district court’s finding of juvenile delinquency and the resulting disposition. 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.