UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 02-4663

TIMOTHY LEOTIS MCCRAY,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.

Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge.

(CR-02-11)

Submitted: May 20, 2003

Decided: May 29, 2003

Before WILLIAMS and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

J. Michael McGuinness, THE MCGUINNESS LAW FIRM, Elizabethtown, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne Margaret Hayes,

Assistant United States Attorney, Mary Jude Darrow, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Timothy Leotis McCray appeals his conviction and sentence for a

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000). McCray’s attorney has

filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967). Although counsel states that there are no meritorious issues

for appeal, he challenges the adequacy of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 plea

colloquy, as well as the imposition of sentence. The Government

elected not to file a formal brief. Although informed of his right to

file a supplemental brief, McCray has not done so. In accordance with

Anders, we have considered the brief and examined the entire record

for meritorious issues. 

McCray first argues that the district court did not conduct an adequate Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 plea colloquy. Because McCray failed to

object or move to withdraw his guilty plea, we review his plea hearing for plain error. See United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 524-

27 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 123 S. Ct. 200 (2002). 

The record reveals that the district court explained to McCray the

charges against him, the maximum penalties therefor, the applicability

of the sentencing guidelines, and the various rights he was waiving

by pleading guilty. McCray acknowledged his understanding of the

court’s explanation, made no objection to the Government’s factual

basis for the plea, and stated that he was satisfied with the services

of his attorney. Thus, we find that the district court conducted an adequate Rule 11 plea colloquy. 

McCray’s next argument, that the district court erred in the imposition of sentence is, likewise, without merit. The district court’s application of the sentencing guidelines is reviewed for clear error as to

factual findings; legal determinations are reviewed de novo. See

United States v. Blake, 81 F.3d 498, 503 (4th Cir. 1996). The district

2 UNITED STATES v. MCCRAY
court correctly found that McCray’s offense level was 34 and his

criminal history category was VI, placing him in a sentencing range

of 262 to 327 months imprisonment. The court then sentenced

McCray to 262 months imprisonment, finding that such a sentence at

the low end of the guideline range was reasonable. Thus, we find that

the district court’s imposition of sentence was proper. 

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

this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm McCray’s conviction and sentence. This court requires

that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his 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

UNITED STATES v. MCCRAY 3