UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

No. 99-4405

DANIEL PEREZ-PEREZ, a/k/a Daniel

Perez, a/k/a Pancho Sanchez, a/k/a

Fernando Wood-Bustamante,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville.

Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge.

(CR-98-44-H)

Submitted: April 28, 2000

Decided: June 2, 2000

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Edwin C. Walker, Acting Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois,

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellant. Janice McKenzie Cole, United States Attorney, Anne M.

Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Felice McConnell Corpening, Assistant United States Attorney, William Boyer, Third-Year

Law Student, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Daniel Perez-Perez ("Perez") pled guilty, without a written plea

agreement, to illegally reentering the United States after he was

deported because he had been convicted of an aggravated felony, in

violation of 8 U.S.C.A. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (West 1999). On appeal,

Perez challenges the voluntariness of his plea. Finding no reversible

error, we affirm.

During the hearing conducted pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11,

Perez informed the district court that he was dissatisfied with the representation provided by the Assistant Federal Public Defender

("AFPD") appointed by the court. The district court did not ask any

questions to determine why Perez was dissatisfied. Rather, the court

explained Perez' right to counsel and informed him that the court

would not appoint another attorney because the AFPD appointed to

represent him was competent and experienced in criminal matters.

Perez declined the court's invitation to consider his alternatives and

proceeded with the plea hearing and at sentencing represented by the

AFPD. At the conclusion of the Rule 11 colloquy, the court found that

Perez was competent to enter a plea, that the plea was knowing and

voluntary, and that the plea was supported by a sufficient factual

basis.

On appeal, Perez asserts that the district court's failure to inquire

as to the reasons he was dissatisfied with the AFPD affected the voluntariness of his plea. After de novo review, see United States v.

Goins, 51 F.3d 400, 402 (4th Cir. 1995) (stating standard of review),

we find that the plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered.

Although Perez relies on our decision in United States v. Damon, 191

F.3d 561, 564 (4th Cir. 1999) (holding that, when a defendant states

during a plea hearing that he is under the influence of medication, the

district court has a duty to inquire further to determine whether the

defendant is competent to enter the plea), his reliance is misplaced.

 2
We therefore affirm Perez' conviction. 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

 3