UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-4170

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

JOHN EDWARD PATTERSON, a/k/a Pat Patterson, 

 Defendant – Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, 

District Judge. (1:06-cr-00251-LHT-5) 

Submitted: February 20, 2009 Decided: April 8, 2009 

Before TRAXLER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Thomas A. Will, Jr., THE LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS A. WILL, JR., 

Gastonia, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2 

PER CURIAM: 

 John Edward Patterson, a/k/a Pat Patterson, appeals 

his conviction and sentence for conspiracy to distribute cocaine 

base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006). Patterson pled 

guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement that stipulated, 

pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(B), that the Career 

Offender provision set out in U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual

(“USSG”) § 4B1.1 “may be used” in determining his sentence if it 

was determined to be applicable. Patterson’s attorney has filed 

a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 739 (1967). 

Although concluding that there are no meritorious issues for 

appeal, counsel questions whether Patterson’s guilty plea was 

valid and whether he received ineffective assistance of counsel. 

Patterson has not filed a pro se supplemental brief and the 

Government declined to file a brief. After a careful review of 

the record, we affirm. 

I. 

 Under Rule 11(b)(1), the district court must address 

the defendant in open court and inform him of the following: the 

nature of the charge; any mandatory minimum sentence and the 

maximum possible sentence; the applicability of the Sentencing 

Guidelines; the court’s obligation to impose a special 
3 

assessment; the defendant’s right to an attorney; his right to 

plead not guilty and be tried by a jury with the assistance of 

counsel; his right to confront and cross-examine witnesses; his 

right against self-incrimination; and his right to testify, 

present evidence, and compel the attendance of witnesses. The 

defendant also must be told that a guilty plea waives any 

further trial and that his answers at the proceeding may be used 

against him in a prosecution for perjury. Under Rule 11(b)(2), 

the court must address the defendant to determine that the plea 

is voluntary. The court must require disclosure of any plea 

agreement under Rule 11(c)(2) and determine a factual basis for 

the plea under Rule 11(b)(3). 

 At the Rule 11 hearing, the district court informed 

Patterson of the nature of the charges against him, the possible 

application of the guidelines to his sentence, and the fact that 

he would not be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea if he 

received a higher sentence than he expected. When Patterson 

questioned the guidelines range determined at the sentencing 

hearing, and the court questioned whether he understood that he 

could have chosen to go to trial, Patterson indicated that he 

would not have wanted to go to trial, and did not seek to 

withdraw his guilty plea. The record reflects that his guilty 

plea was knowing and voluntary. 
4 

II. 

 We may address on direct appeal a claim that counsel 

was ineffective only if the ineffectiveness appears conclusively 

on the face of the record. United States v. Baldovinos, 434 

F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir. 2006). In this case, there is no 

conclusive indication from the record that Patterson’s counsel 

did not properly advise him regarding his plea agreement, 

despite Patterson’s contention that his counsel estimated his 

guidelines range would be lower than it was determined to be, 

perhaps based upon a mistaken prediction that Patterson would 

not be sentenced as a career offender. The plea agreement 

specifically noted that Patterson might be sentenced as a career 

offender, and the record does not conclusively indicate that 

Patterson’s counsel failed to effectively advise him regarding 

that provision. 

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record 

in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. 

We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court 

requires that counsel inform Patterson, in writing, of the right 

to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further 

review. If Patterson 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 
5 

representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof 

was served on Patterson. 

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