Case ID: f-appx_62/html/0529-01.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. Stephen Michael PAGE, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 02-4411.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted April 16, 2003.
    Decided May 1, 2003.
    
      William L. Davis, III, Lumberton, North Carolina, for Appellant. D. Scott Broyles, Office of the United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Stephen Michael Page pleaded guilty to membership in a conspiracy to distribute controlled substances, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846 (2000). Page was sentenced to 292 months incarceration and 5 years of supervised release. Page timely appealed his conviction, and his attorney has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

On appeal, Page asserts that the magistrate judge erred in conducting his Fed. R.Civ.P. 11 plea colloquy, and consequently, that the district court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. We review this claim for abuse of discretion. United States v. Ubakanma, 215 F.3d 421, 424 (4th Cir.2000). Page’s claims are meritless. Page cannot establish his plea colloquy was flawed, or that the district court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Fed. R.Civ.P. 11; United States v. Lambey, 974 F.2d 1389, 1394 (4th Cir.1992); United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116-17 (4th Cir.1991). United States v. Moore, 931 F.2d 245, 248 (4th Cir.1991).

Accordingly, we affirm Page’s conviction and sentence. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and find no other meritorious issues for appeal. 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.