Court Opinion

ID: 991520
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-03 23:38:24.459715+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:27:13.332756
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                        No. 96-4426

ANTHONY WAYNE CAMERON,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham.
William L. Osteen, Sr., District Judge.
(CR-95-266)

Submitted: February 13, 1997

Decided: February 28, 1997

Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and
BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Thomas K. Maher, RUDOLF & MAHER, P.A., Chapel Hill, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Walter C. Holton, Jr., United States Attorney,
Paul A. Weinman, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellee.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Cameron pled guilty to conspiring to distribute crack
cocaine, carrying or using a firearm during and in relation to a drug
offense, and distribution of crack cocaine. The district court sentenced
Cameron to serve 248 months in prison followed by five years super-
vised release and to pay a special assessment fee of $100. Cameron
appeals his conviction and sentence. Cameron's attorney filed a brief
in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising
one issue but asserting that there are no meritorious issues for appeal.
Cameron was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief,
which he has failed to do.

Cameron's counsel raises the issue of whether the district court
erred in not allowing Cameron to withdraw his guilty plea. Following
a de novo review of the record, we conclude that the district court did
not abuse its discretion in not allowing the withdrawal of Cameron's
guilty plea. See United States v. Ewing, 957 F.2d 115, 119 (4th Cir.
1992); United States v. Brown, 617 F.2d 54, 55 (4th Cir. 1980). At
no time during the plea hearing or sentencing hearing did Cameron
ask to withdraw his guilty plea. Consequently, this claim lacks merit.

In accordance with the requirements of Anders , we have examined
the entire record in this case and find no other meritorious issues for
appeal. Accordingly, we affirm Appellant'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. Coun-
sel's motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                     2