UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-4686

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

LUKE W. PUGH, 

 Defendant – Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Elkins. John Preston Bailey, 

Chief District Judge. (2:10-cr-00025-JPB-JSK-1) 

Submitted: December 9, 2011 Decided: December 16, 2011

Before AGEE and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

L. Richard Walker, Senior Litigator, Clarksburg, West Virginia, 

for Appellant. Stephen Donald Warner, Assistant United States 

Attorney, Elkins, West Virginia, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Luke W. Pugh pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea 

agreement, to one count of making false statements, 

representations, and certifications in documents required to be 

maintained by the Mine Safety and Health Administration, in 

violation of 30 U.S.C. § 820(f) (2006). The district court 

calculated Pugh’s Guidelines range under the U.S. Sentencing 

Guidelines Manual (2010) at fifteen to twenty-one months’ 

imprisonment, imposed a downward variance, and sentenced Pugh to 

imprisonment for one year and one day. On appeal, counsel has 

filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 

(1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, 

but questioning whether the district court plainly erred in 

accepting Pugh’s guilty plea. Pugh was advised of his right to 

file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not done so. The 

Government declined to file a brief. We affirm. 

Because Pugh did not move in the district court to 

withdraw his guilty plea, the adequacy of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 

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

Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 524-26 (4th Cir. 2002). Our review of 

the transcript of the guilty plea hearing leads us to conclude 

that the magistrate judge substantially complied with the 

mandates of Rule 11 in accepting Pugh’s guilty plea and that the 

court’s omissions did not affect Pugh’s substantial rights. 
3

Critically, the transcript reveals that the magistrate judge 

ensured the plea was supported by an independent factual basis 

and Pugh entered the plea knowingly and voluntarily with an 

understanding of the consequences. United States v. DeFusco, 

949 F.2d 114, 116, 120 (4th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, we discern 

no plain error in the district court’s acceptance of Pugh’s 

guilty plea. 

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire

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 Pugh, in writing, of the 

right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for 

further review. If Pugh 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 Pugh. 

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