UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-4459

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

FREDRICK EUGENE HUGHES, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. 

(4:07-cr-00359-RBH-1) 

Submitted: December 3, 2008 Decided: December 16, 2008 

Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, 

Senior Circuit Judge. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

John M. Ervin, III, ERVIN LAW OFFICE, Darlington, South 

Carolina, for Appellant. Rose Mary Sheppard Parham, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Frederick Eugene Hughes 

pled guilty to two counts of using and carrying a firearm, 

during and relation to and in furtherance of, a crime of 

violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) (2006). 

Hughes was sentenced to the statutorily required minimum term of 

seven years’ imprisonment on the first count and received the 

statutorily required consecutive minimum term of twenty-five 

years’ imprisonment on the second count. He now appeals. His 

attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 

U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues 

for appeal, but questioning whether the district court complied 

with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting Hughes’ guilty plea. 

Hughes was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental 

brief, but he has not done so. 

Because Hughes did not move in the district court to 

withdraw his guilty plea, his challenge to the adequacy of the 

Rule 11 hearing is reviewed for plain error. See United States 

v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). Our review of 

the transcript of the plea hearing leads us to conclude that the 

district court substantially complied with the mandates of Fed. 

R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting Hughes’ guilty plea and that the 

court’s omissions did not affect Hughes’ substantial rights. 

Critically, the transcript reveals that the district court 

2 
3 

ensured the plea was supported by an independent factual basis 

and that Hughes entered the plea knowingly and voluntarily with 

an understanding of the consequences. See United States v. 

DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116, 119-20 (4th Cir. 1991). Further, 

Hughes does not suggest that he would have declined to plead 

guilty had the district court’s Rule 11 colloquy been more 

exacting. Accordingly, we discern no plain error. 

We have examined the entire record in this case in 

accordance with the requirements of Anders, and we find no 

meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the 

district court’s judgment. This court requires counsel to 

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, counsel may move in 

this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s 

motion must state that a copy of the motion 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