UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4409

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RYHEEM RISHAWN JENKINS, a/k/a Heem,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. 

(4:13-cr-00446-RBH-6)

Submitted: March 30, 2015 Decided: April 22, 2015

Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam 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, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Ryheem Rishawn Jenkins appeals his conviction, pursuant to 

a guilty plea, for conspiracy to possess with intent to 

distribute and to distribute 280 grams or more of cocaine base, 

500 grams or more of cocaine, and a quantity of marijuana, in 

violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846 (2012). The 

district court sentenced Jenkins to a 180-month term of 

imprisonment, as stipulated in the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C) 

plea agreement. Jenkins’ counsel has filed a brief pursuant to 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that he has 

found no meritorious grounds for appeal but raising as a 

potential issue the adequacy of the plea hearing. Although 

informed of his right to do so, Jenkins has not filed a pro se 

supplemental brief. 

Having reviewed the transcript of the plea colloquy for 

plain error, we conclude that the district court substantially 

complied with the requirements of Rule 11. The court’s failure 

to inform Jenkins of the potential immigration consequences of 

his plea and that the agreed-upon sentence would be included in 

the judgment did not affect his substantial rights. See

Henderson v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1121, 1126-27 (2013) 

(providing standard); see also United States v. Davila, 133 S. 

Ct. 2139, 2147 (2013) (applying standard in guilty plea

context). 
3

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire 

record for any meritorious grounds for appeal and have found 

none. Accordingly, we affirm Jenkins’ conviction. Because 

Jenkins’ agreed-upon sentence was imposed pursuant to Rule 

11(c)(1)(C), it is not reviewable. See 18 U.S.C. § 3742(c)(1) 

(2012); United States v. Calderon, 428 F.3d 928, 932 (10th Cir. 

2005). Thus, we dismiss the appeal as to the sentence and we 

affirm the judgment in all other respects. 

This court requires that counsel inform Jenkins, in 

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

United States for further review. If Jenkins requests that a 

petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition 

would be frivolous, counsel may move in this court for leave to 

withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that 

a copy thereof was served on Jenkins. 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 IN PART;

DISMISSED IN PART