Court Opinion

ID: 992176
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-03 23:47:41.979958+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:21:53.078928
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.
                                                                   No. 96-4595
TOYA L. COLEMAN, a/k/a Toya
Hawkins, a/k/a Mildred White,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia.
Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge.
(CR-95-669)

Submitted: April 15, 1997

Decided: May 5, 1997

Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON,
Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

John H. Hare, Federal Public Defender, Columbia, South Carolina,
for Appellant. Cameron Glenn Chandler, Assistant United States
Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Toya Coleman appeals from her conviction and sentence for with-
holding information on a crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 4 (1994).
Coleman'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
Coleman's guilty plea and whether the court properly imposed Cole-
man's sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines. Counsel asserts that
there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Coleman was notified of
her right to file an additional brief, but has not done so. We affirm.

Coleman contends that the district court improperly conducted the
Rule 11 hearing in accepting her 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 her rights and in
ascertaining the voluntariness of her 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.

Coleman also maintains that the court derived her sentence either
in violation of the law or through an inaccurate computation pursuant
to the Sentencing Guidelines. However, Coleman's failure to object
during sentencing amounts to a waiver of her right to raise that issue
on appeal absent plain error. United States v. Ford, 88 F.3d 1350,

                     2
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 Coleman'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 his client,
in writing, of her 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