Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-04682/USCOURTS-ca4-19-04682-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James Atkinson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-4682

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JAMES ATKINSON, a/k/a Breezi,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. 

Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:18-cr-00205-RDB-1)

Submitted: April 16, 2020 Decided: April 20, 2020

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth E. McPherson, KENNETH E. MCPHERSON, CHTD., Riverdale, Maryland, for 

Appellant. Burden Hastings Walker, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, 

Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-4682 Doc: 24 Filed: 04/20/2020 Pg: 1 of 4
2

PER CURIAM:

James Atkinson appeals his convictions and 144-month sentence imposed following 

his guilty plea, pursuant to a Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(c) plea agreement, to interference 

with commerce by robbery and brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951(a), 924(c) (2018). On appeal, counsel for Atkinson has 

filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no 

meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether the district court complied with 

Fed. R. Crim. P. 11. Although notified of his right to do so, Atkinson has not filed a pro 

se supplemental brief. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.*

Counsel questions whether the district court complied with Rule 11. Because 

Atkinson did not move to withdraw his guilty plea, this court reviews the adequacy of the 

Rule 11 proceeding for plain error. United States v. Sanya, 774 F.3d 812, 815 (4th Cir. 

2014). To prevail under this standard, Atkinson “must demonstrate not only that the district 

court plainly erred, but also that this error affected his substantial rights.” Id. at 816. A 

defendant who pleads guilty establishes that an error affected his substantial rights by 

demonstrating a reasonable probability that he would not have pleaded guilty but for the 

error. United States v. Davila, 569 U.S. 597, 608 (2013). 

 * Because the Government failed to respond to the Anders brief, it has not invoked the 

waiver-of-appellate-rights provision in the plea agreement, permitting us to conduct our

review pursuant to Anders. See United States v. Poindexter, 492 F.3d 263, 271 (4th Cir. 

2007). Nor has the Government moved to dismiss the appeal as untimely, and we conclude 

that sua sponte dismissal is not warranted. See United States v. Oliver, 878 F.3d 120, 129 

(4th Cir. 2017).

USCA4 Appeal: 19-4682 Doc: 24 Filed: 04/20/2020 Pg: 2 of 4
3

Before accepting a guilty plea, the district court must conduct a plea colloquy in 

which it informs the defendant of, and determines he understands, the rights he is 

relinquishing by pleading guilty, the charges to which he is pleading, and the maximum 

and mandatory minimum penalties he faces. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1); United States v. 

DeFusco, 949 F.3d 114, 116 (4th Cir. 1991). The court also must ensure that the plea was 

voluntary and not the result of threats, force, or promises not contained in the plea 

agreement, Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(2), and “that there is a factual basis for the plea,” Fed. 

R. Crim. P. 11(b)(3). 

We have reviewed the transcript of Atkinson’s guilty plea hearing and conclude that 

the district court substantially complied with Rule 11. Although the district court neglected 

to inform Atkinson of his right to present evidence at trial, Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1)(E), 

and of the potential immigration consequences of pleading guilty, Fed. R. Crim. P. 

11(b)(1)(O), these minor omissions did not affect his substantial rights. Moreover, the 

district court ensured that Atkinson entered his plea knowingly and voluntarily and that a 

factual basis supported the plea. See DeFusco, 949 F.2d at 116, 119-20 (explaining Rule 

11 requirements). 

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have 

found no meritorious groundsfor appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. 

This court requires that counsel inform Atkinson, in writing, of the right to petition the 

Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Atkinson requests that a petition 

be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may 

USCA4 Appeal: 19-4682 Doc: 24 Filed: 04/20/2020 Pg: 3 of 4
4

move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state 

that a copy thereof was served on Atkinson.

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 the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 19-4682 Doc: 24 Filed: 04/20/2020 Pg: 4 of 4