Case ID: f-appx_80/html/0866-01.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. Gregory Lavette YOUNG, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 03-4309.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 20, 2003.
    Decided Nov. 17, 2003.
    James Barlow Loggins, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant.
    Isaac Louis Johnson, Jr., Office of the United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   PER CURIAM.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Gregory Lavette Young appeals his conviction and sentence for a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) (2000). Young’s attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Although counsel states that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, he challenges the adequacy of the Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 plea colloquy. The Government elected not to file a formal brief. Although informed of his right to file a supplemental brief, Young has not done so. In accordance with Anders, we have considered the brief and examined the entire record for meritorious issues.

Young argues that the district court did not conduct an adequate Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 plea colloquy. Because Young failed to object or move to withdraw his guilty plea, we review his plea hearing for plain error. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 524-27 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 899, 123 S.Ct. 200, 154 L.Ed.2d 169 (2002).

The record reveals that the district court explained to Young the charges against him, the maximum penalties he faced, the applicability of the sentencing guidelines, and the various rights he was waiving by pleading guilty. Young acknowledged his understanding of the court’s explanation, did not object to the Government’s factual basis for the plea, and stated that he was satisfied with the services of his attorney. Thus, we find that the district court conducted an adequate Rule 11 plea colloquy.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record on appeal and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Young’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