UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-5118

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JESSICA M. COBIA,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District

Judge. (3:06-cr-00359-CMC)

Submitted: April 26, 2007 Decided: April 30, 2007

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Allen B. Burnside, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia,

South Carolina, for Appellant. Dean Arthur Eichelberger, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
*The probation officer calculated an advisory sentencing

guideline range for Cobia of fifty-seven to seventy-one months’

imprisonment founded on a total offense level of nineteen and a

criminal history category of V. After careful consideration of the

facts and evidence, the district court made all the factual

findings appropriate for that determination, and considered the

advisory sentencing range along with the other factors described in

18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2006), prior to imposing

sentence.

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Jessica M. Cobia pled guilty to one count of a threecount indictment charging credit card fraud, in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 1029(a)(2) (2000) (Count 1). The district court sentenced

Cobia to fifty-seven months’ imprisonment, three years of

supervised release, and ordered payment of restitution in the

amount of $101,251.83 and a $100 statutory assessment.*

 Cobia’s

counsel 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

the requirements of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting Cobia’s plea.

Cobia was given an opportunity to file a pro se brief, but has

failed to do so.

Cobia did not move in the district court to withdraw her

guilty plea, therefore her challenge to the adequacy of the Rule 11

hearing is reviewed for plain error. See United States v.

Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). We have carefully

reviewed the transcript of the Rule 11 hearing and find no plain
- 3 -

error in the district court’s acceptance of Cobia’s guilty plea.

See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 119-20 (4th Cir. 1991).

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for

appeal. We therefore affirm Cobia’s conviction and sentence. This

court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of her

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