Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-04389/USCOURTS-ca4-15-04389-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
George Andrew McNeil
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4389

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

GEORGE ANDREW MCNEIL,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. Bruce H. Hendricks, District 

Judge. (4:14-cr-00454-BHH-1)

Submitted: March 16, 2016 Decided: April 11, 2016

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

M.W. Cockrell, III, THE COCKRELL LAW FIRM, P.C., Chesterfield, 

South Carolina, for Appellant. Alfred William Walker Bethea, 

Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence South Carolina; 

Robert Frank Daley, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, 

Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4389 Doc: 32 Filed: 04/11/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

George Andrew McNeil pleaded guilty to conspiracy to 

possess with intent to distribute and distribute cocaine and 

cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2012). The 

district court sentenced McNeil to 262 months of imprisonment 

and he now appeals. Appellate counsel has filed a brief 

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), 

questioning whether the district court fully complied with the 

requirements of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11. Finding no error, we 

affirm. 

Appellate counsel questions on appeal whether the district 

court fully complied with Rule 11 in accepting McNeil’s guilty

plea. The purpose of the Rule 11 colloquy is to ensure that the 

plea of guilty is entered into knowingly and voluntarily. See

United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 58 (2002). Accordingly, 

prior to accepting a guilty plea, a trial court, through 

colloquy with the defendant, must inform the defendant of, and 

determine that he understands, the nature of the charges to 

which the plea is offered, any mandatory minimum penalty, the 

maximum possible penalty he faces, and the various rights he is 

relinquishing by pleading guilty. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b). The 

court also must determine whether there is a factual basis for 

the plea. Id.; United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 120 (4th 

Cir. 1991). 

Appeal: 15-4389 Doc: 32 Filed: 04/11/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

Because McNeil did not move in the district court to 

withdraw his guilty plea, any error in the Rule 11 hearing is 

reviewed for plain error. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 

517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). We have reviewed the record and 

conclude that McNeil’s guilty plea was knowingly and voluntarily 

entered. The district court fully complied with the 

requirements of Rule 11 and properly ensured that McNeil was 

pleading guilty voluntarily. 

We have examined the entire record in accordance with the 

requirements of Anders and have found no meritorious issues for 

appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district 

court. This court requires that counsel inform McNeil, in 

writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the 

United States for further review. If McNeil 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 McNeil. We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid in the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED

Appeal: 15-4389 Doc: 32 Filed: 04/11/2016 Pg: 3 of 3