UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-4095

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DOUGLAS OWEN LAW,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at 

Clarksburg. Thomas S. Kleeh, Chief District Judge. (1:22-cr-00033-TSK-MJA-1)

Submitted: April 11, 2024 Decided: April 15, 2024

Before AGEE and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Katy J. Cimino, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE 

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. Carly 

Cordaro Nogay, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West 

Virginia, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4095 Doc: 28 Filed: 04/15/2024 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Douglas Owen Law pled guilty to sex tourism, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(c). 

The district court sentenced Law to 136 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Law’s counsel 

has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), conceding that there 

are no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning whether Law’s guilty plea was 

knowing and voluntary. Although notified of his right to do so, Law has not filed a pro se 

supplemental brief. We affirm the district court’s judgment.

Before accepting a guilty plea, the district court must conduct a plea colloquy during 

which it must inform the defendant of, and determine that the defendant understands, the 

rights he is relinquishing by pleading guilty, the charges to which he is pleading, and the 

maximum and mandatory minimum penalties he faces. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1). The 

district court also must ensure that the plea is voluntary and not the result of threats, force, 

or promises not contained in the plea agreement, Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(2), and that a 

factual basis supports the plea, Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(3).

Because Law did not seek to withdraw his guilty plea, we review the adequacy of 

the Rule 11 hearing for plain error. United States v. Williams, 811 F.3d 621, 622 (4th Cir. 

2016). “Under the plain error standard, [we] will correct an unpreserved error if (1) an 

error was made; (2) the error is plain; (3) the error affects substantial rights; and (4) the 

error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” 

United States v. Harris, 890 F.3d 480, 491 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks 

omitted). The record demonstrates that the magistrate judge conducted a thorough plea 

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4095 Doc: 28 Filed: 04/15/2024 Pg: 2 of 3
3

colloquy, fully complying with Rule 11, and ensured that Law’s plea was knowing and 

voluntary. We therefore affirm Law’s conviction.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have 

found no meritorious issues for review. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. 

This court requires that counsel inform Law, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme 

Court of the United States for further review. If Law 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 Law.

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

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4095 Doc: 28 Filed: 04/15/2024 Pg: 3 of 3