UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.* The probation officer calculated an advisory sentencing guideline range for Cobia of fifty-seven to seventy-one months’ imprisonment founded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 c harging 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 prose 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. SeeUnited States v. Martinez , 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). We have carefully reviewed the t ranscript 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