Court Opinion

ID: 9960721
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-16 21:00:46.79071+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:47.276349
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4095      Doc: 28         Filed: 04/15/2024     Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-4095

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        DOUGLAS OWEN LAW,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
        Clarksburg. Thomas S. Kleeh, Chief District Judge. (1:22-cr-00033-TSK-MJA-1)

        Submitted: April 11, 2024                                         Decided: April 15, 2024

        Before AGEE and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Katy J. Cimino, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE
        FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. Carly
        Cordaro Nogay, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West
        Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4095       Doc: 28          Filed: 04/15/2024      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Douglas Owen Law pled guilty to sex tourism, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(c).

        The district court sentenced Law to 136 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Law’s counsel

        has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), conceding that there

        are no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning whether Law’s guilty plea was

        knowing and voluntary. Although notified of his right to do so, Law has not filed a pro se

        supplemental brief. We affirm the district court’s judgment.

               Before accepting a guilty plea, the district court must conduct a plea colloquy during

        which it must inform the defendant of, and determine that the defendant understands, the

        rights he is relinquishing by pleading guilty, the charges to which he is pleading, and the

        maximum and mandatory minimum penalties he faces. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1). The

        district court also must ensure that the plea is voluntary and not the result of threats, force,

        or promises not contained in the plea agreement, Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(2), and that a

        factual basis supports the plea, Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(3).

               Because Law did not seek to withdraw his guilty plea, we review the adequacy of

        the Rule 11 hearing for plain error. United States v. Williams, 811 F.3d 621, 622 (4th Cir.

        2016). “Under the plain error standard, [we] will correct an unpreserved error if (1) an

        error was made; (2) the error is plain; (3) the error affects substantial rights; and (4) the

        error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.”

        United States v. Harris, 890 F.3d 480, 491 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks

        omitted). The record demonstrates that the magistrate judge conducted a thorough plea

                                                       2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4095         Doc: 28      Filed: 04/15/2024      Pg: 3 of 3

        colloquy, fully complying with Rule 11, and ensured that Law’s plea was knowing and

        voluntary. We therefore affirm Law’s conviction.

               In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have

        found no meritorious issues for review. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.

        This court requires that counsel inform Law, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme

        Court of the United States for further review. If Law 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. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy

        thereof was served on Law.

               We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

        adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

        decisional process.

                                                                                        AFFIRMED

                                                     3