Court Opinion

ID: 992490
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-03 23:52:43.608164+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:26:21.618019
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                    No. 96-4792

BILLY RAY WILFONG,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville.
Richard L. Voorhees, Chief District Judge.
(CR-95-33)

Submitted: June 12, 1997

Decided: June 24, 1997

Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and
PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Christopher A. Connelly, KAPLAN, GILPIN & HARRIS, Charlotte,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Mark T. Calloway, United States
Attorney, H. Thomas Church, Assistant United States Attorney, Char-
lotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Billy Ray Wilfong pleaded guilty to conspiring to possess with the
intent to distribute and distribution of cocaine and cocaine base, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (1994). The district court sentenced Wil-
fong to 144 months imprisonment followed by five years of super-
vised release, a fine of $1000, and a special assessment of $50. He
appeals his conviction and sentence. Wilfong's attorney has filed a
brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
raising two possible issues for review, but indicating that, in his view,
there are no meritorious issues for appeal. He also filed a motion to
withdraw. Wilfong filed an opposition to the Anders brief and motion
to remand.

Wilfong's attorney raises the questions of whether the district court
complied with requirements outlined in Rule 11 of the Federal Rules
of Criminal Procedure when taking Wilfong's plea, and whether the
district court erred in sentencing Wilfong. Following a de novo
review of the entire record, we conclude that the district court com-
plied with all the mandates of Rule 11 in accepting Wilfong's plea.
Further, we find no error in the sentencing of Wilfong. We affirm
Wilfong's conviction and sentence, and deny Wilfong's motion to
remand.

In accordance with the requirements of Anders , we have examined
the entire record in this case and find no other meritorious issues for
appeal. We deny counsel's motion to withdraw at this stage of the
proceedings. 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 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 the cli-
ent.

                     2
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

                    3