Court Opinion

ID: 993197
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 00:04:10.751487+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:14:02.111854
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                    No. 96-4683

DEXTER WILLIAM WALTON,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Virginia, at Danville.
Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge.
(CR-95-127)

Submitted: September 9, 1997

Decided: October 9, 1997

Before HALL, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Parks N. Small, Federal Public Defender, Columbia, South Carolina,
for Appellant. Anthony Paul Giorno, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Dexter William Walton appeals from his conviction and sentence
for conspiracy to attempt to possess with intent to distribute cocaine
base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (1994), and for attempting to
possess with intent to distribute cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(l) (1994). Walton's attorney has 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 Walton's guilty plea and whether the court properly
imposed Walton's sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines. Counsel
asserts that there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Walton was
notified of his right to file an additional brief, but has not done so. We
affirm.

Walton 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 accords great deference
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 harm-
less error standard. Id. at 117. 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.

Our review of the record discloses that the district court sufficiently
complied with Rule 11 in informing Appellant of his rights and in
ascertaining the voluntariness of his plea. We find that because
Appellant's substantial rights were not in any way compromised, any
alleged error during the Rule 11 colloquy was harmless.

Walton also maintains that the district court inaccurately computed
his sentence based on the Sentencing Guidelines. However, Walton's
failure to object during sentencing amounts to a waiver of his right
to raise that issue on appeal absent plain error. United States v. Ford,
88 F.3d 1350, 1355-56 (4th Cir.), cert. denied , ___ U.S. ___, 65
U.S.L.W. 3369 (U.S. Nov. 18, 1996) (No. 96-6379). We find no plain
error in the record warranting review of Walton's sentence.

                     2
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 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 represen-
tation. 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 oral argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                     3