UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-4276

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

JAMES K. LARBI,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, District Judge. 

(1:05-cr-00088-BEL-2)

Submitted: September 15, 2011 Decided: September 29, 2011

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

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael D. Montemarano, MICHAEL D. MONTEMARANO, P.A., Elkridge, 

Maryland, for Appellant. Philip S. Jackson, Assistant United 

States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

James K. Larbi appeals the eighty-seven-month sentence 

imposed following his guilty plea to conspiracy to possess with 

the intent to distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 

(2006). Counsel for Larbi filed a brief in this court in 

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), 

certifying that there are no non-frivolous issues for appeal, 

but noting that Larbi believed trial counsel rendered 

ineffective assistance. Larbi filed a pro se supplemental 

brief, arguing that his guilty plea was rendered unknowing and 

involuntary by (1) the arresting officers’ failure to inform him 

of his right to speak with the Ghanaian consulate; and (2) the 

district court’s failure to review with Larbi his appellate 

waiver.

Appellate counsel for Larbi questions whether trial 

counsel rendered ineffective assistance in failing to request 

and obtain a lesser sentence. Claims of ineffective assistance 

of counsel are not cognizable on direct appeal unless the record 

conclusively establishes that counsel provided ineffective 

assistance. United States v. Benton, 523 F.3d 424, 435 (4th 

Cir. 2008). Larbi’s claim is not ripe for review because the 

record contains no conclusive evidence that counsel was 

ineffective.
3

Larbi’s pro se supplemental brief challenges the 

validity of his guilty plea. Prior to accepting a guilty plea, 

the district court must inform the defendant of the nature of 

the charge to which the plea is offered, any mandatory minimum 

penalty, the maximum possible penalty, and the various rights he 

is relinquishing by pleading guilty. Fed. R. Crim P. 11(b). 

The court also must determine whether there is a factual basis 

for the plea. Id.; United States v. DeFusco, 949 F2d. 114, 116, 

120 (4th Cir. 1991). The purpose of the Rule 11 colloquy is to 

ensure that the plea of guilty is entered into knowingly and 

voluntarily. See United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 58 (2002).

Because Larbi did not move to withdraw his guilty plea 

in the district court or raise any objections to the Rule 11 

colloquy, the colloquy is reviewed for plain error. United 

States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 524-27 (4th Cir. 2002). To 

demonstrate plain error, a defendant must show that: (1) there 

was an error; (2) the error was plain; and (3) the error 

affected his “substantial rights.” United States v. Olano, 507 

U.S. 725, 732 (1993). Mindful of these standards, we have 

reviewed the record and conclude that Larbi’s pro se claims do 

not entitle him to relief. Accordingly, we hold that the 

district court did not plainly err in conducting the Rule 11 

colloquy or in accepting Larbi’s guilty plea.
4

In accordance with Anders, we have examined the entire 

record and find no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore 

affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires that 

counsel inform Larbi, in writing, of his right to petition the 

Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Larbi 

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 Larbi. 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