Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesse BROOKS, a/k/a Adonis, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-02-26
Citations: 3 F. App'x 176
Docket Number: No. 99-4325
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesse BROOKS, a/k/a Adonis, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 3
Pages: 176–176

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesse BROOKS, a/k/a Adonis, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 99-4325.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 9, 2001.
Decided Feb. 26, 2001.
James T. McBratney, McBratney Law Firm, Florence, SC, for appellant. J. Rene Josey, United States Attorney, Alfred W. Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, SC, for appellee.
Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Jesse Brooks appeals his conviction entered after his guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base. On appeal, Brooks contends that the district court erred by failing to inform him of the applicable statutory minimum sentence at his Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 hearing. Because the record reflected a technical violation of Rule 11, we remanded the case for a determination by the district court of whether Brooks knew of his mandatory minimum sentence before he pled guilty, and if not, whether his lack of knowledge affected his decision to plead guilty. On remand, the district court found that Brooks knew of the mandatory minimum sentence before he pled guilty, and thus, even had Brooks been properly informed by the district court at the Rule 11 hearing, it would not have affected his decision to plead guilty.
We have reviewed the district court's order on remand, as well as the applicable transcripts and the appellate briefs, and we are in agreement with the district court's conclusions. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court in its order on remand. United States v. Brooks, No. CR-98-757 (D.S.C. June 16, 2000). 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.