UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-4721

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

CHARLAYNE A. CRAWFORD,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Anderson. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District

Judge. (CR-05-244)

Submitted: February 16, 2006 Decided: February 21, 2006

Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James B. Loggins, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,

South Carolina, for Appellant. Maxwell Barnes Cauthen, III, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Charlayne A. Crawford appeals her conviction and sentence

for seven counts of impersonating an officer or employee of the

United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 912 (2000) and 18 U.S.C.

§ 3147 (2000). Crawford’s attorney has filed a brief pursuant to

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that, in his

opinion, there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Although

concluding that such allegations lacked merit, counsel raises two

claims on appeal: (1) whether the court complied with Rule 11 in

accepting Crawford’s plea; and (2) whether the court erred in

revoking Crawford’s bond. Crawford was notified of her right to

file a supplemental pro se brief and filed an affidavit. Finding

no reversible error, we affirm. 

In the Anders brief, Counsel asserts that the district

court did not comply with Rule 11. We find no evidence that the

court did not comply with the requirements in Rule 11. Crawford

acknowledged that she knew and understood all of her rights prior

to pleading guilty. She further indicated that she was pleading

voluntarily and was satisfied with counsel. 

Counsel also questions whether the district court erred

in revoking Crawford’s bond. We find no evidence of error with

this decision. Crawford’s bond included certain conditions with

which she failed to comply. 
- 3 -

Finally, Crawford filed an affidavit in which she

reargues the merits of her initial conviction, appears to allege

civil rights violations, and indicates her belief that her guilty

plea was coerced. We find no evidence that Crawford’s plea was not

given knowingly and voluntarily. Her other claims are without

merit. 

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for

appeal. We therefore affirm Crawford’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