Court Opinion

ID: 994077
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 00:17:26.062009+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:38:51.276197
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                    No. 97-4444

ANTONIO L. YOUNG, a/k/a Tony,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston.
Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge.
(CR-96-241)

Submitted: January 13, 1998

Decided: January 27, 1998

Before WIDENER, HALL, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Ann Briks Walsh, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Robert Hayden Bickerton, Assistant
United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Antonio Young pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to
distribute and to distribute cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(a)(1), 846 (1994). The court sentenced Young to imprison-
ment for eighty-four months, followed by supervised release for five
years.* Young appeals his conviction and sentence. Young's attorney
filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), addressing whether the district court complied with the
requirements of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting Young's guilty plea
and whether the court properly imposed Young's sentence under the
Sentencing Guidelines. Counsel asserts that there are no meritorious
grounds for appeal. Young was informed of his right to file a pro se
supplemental brief, which he failed to file. Because our review of the
entire record reveals no reversible error, we affirm.

Young contends that the district court improperly conducted the
Rule 11 hearing in accepting his guilty plea. "In reviewing the ade-
quacy of compliance with Rule 11, this Court should accord defer-
ence to the trial court's decision as to how best to conduct the
mandated colloquy with the defendant." United States v. DeFusco,
949 F.2d 114, 116 (4th Cir. 1991). Rule 11 violations are evaluated
under the harmless error standard. See id. at 117. As a result, this
Court may vacate a conviction resulting from a guilty "plea only if the
trial court's violations of Rule 11 affected the defendant's substantial
rights." Id.

The district court conducted a thorough hearing, insuring that
Young understood the rights that he would forego by pleading guilty,
the elements of the charge to which he was pleading guilty, the penal-
ties he faced, the effect of supervised release, the impact of the sen-
tencing guidelines, and the effect of the plea agreement. Further, the
court ascertained that Young's plea was voluntary and that a factual
basis existed for his plea. We find that the district court fully com-
_________________________________________________________________
*Young's sentence was the lowest available in the applicable Guide-
lines range.

                    2
plied with Rule 11 and that this claim is without merit. See id. at 116-
17.

Young's attorney next raises as a potential claim that the district
court erroneously applied the sentencing guidelines or otherwise
imposed sentence in violation of law. However, Young's failure to
object during sentencing amounts to a waiver of his right to raise that
issue on appeal absent plain error. See United States v. Ford, 88 F.3d
1350, 1355 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 496 (1996). We find
no plain error in the record warranting review of Young's sentence.

In accordance with Anders, we have examined the entire record in
this case and find no reversible error. We therefore affirm the convic-
tion and sentence. This Court requires that counsel inform her 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 represen-
tation. See Local Rule 46(d). Counsel's motion must state that a copy
thereof was served on the client. See id. We dispense with oral argu-
ment because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before the Court, and oral argument would not aid the
decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                     3