UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-5149

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LAIZON ANTOINE RIVERS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, Chief District 

Judge. (2:08-cr-01151-DCN-1)

Submitted: October 7, 2010 Decided: November 18, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

J. Robert Haley, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, 

South Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United 

States Attorney, Matthew Modica, Assistant United States 

Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Laizon A. Rivers appeals his conviction and sixtymonth sentence imposed after he pled guilty to carrying a 

firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking offense in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) (2006). Rivers’s counsel 

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

(1967), asserting that, in his opinion, there are no meritorious 

grounds for appeal, but questioning whether Rivers’s plea was 

knowing and voluntary, and whether the sentence imposed was 

reasonable. We affirm. 

Because Rivers did not move in the district court to 

withdraw his guilty plea, we review any error in the Fed. R. 

Crim. P. 11 hearing for plain error. United States v. Martinez, 

277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). “To establish plain error, 

[Rivers] must show that an error occurred, that the error was 

plain, and that the error affected his substantial rights.” 

United States v. Muhammad, 478 F.3d 247, 249 (4th Cir. 2007). 

Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the district 

court fully complied with Rule 11, and that Rivers’s guilty plea 

was knowing and voluntary and supported by an independent basis 

in fact. 

We next review Rivers’s sentence. The district court 

sentenced Rivers to the mandatory minimum sentence of sixty 

months’ imprisonment as set forth in 18 U.S.C. 
3

§ 924(c)(1)(A)(i). This statutorily mandated minimum sentence 

is per se reasonable. United States v. Farrior, 535 F.3d 210, 

224 (4th Cir. 2008). We also find no error in the imposition of 

the five-year term of supervised release.∗

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record 

and found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm 

Rivers’s conviction and sentence. This court requires that

counsel inform Rivers, in writing, of the right to petition the 

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

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 Rivers. 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

 ∗ We requested supplemental briefing from the parties on 

whether a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) was a Class A 

felony under 18 U.S.C. § 3559(a)(1) (2006) authorizing a maximum 

term of five years of supervised release under 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3583(b)(1) (2006). After reviewing those briefs, we find that 

Rivers is entitled to no relief on this issue.