UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4309
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
GREGORY LAVETTE YOUNG,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Margaret B. Seymour, District
Judge. (CR-02-606)
Submitted: October 20, 2003 Decided: November 17, 2003
Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Barlow Loggins, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Isaac Louis Johnson,
Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Gregory Lavette Young appeals his conviction and sentence for
a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) (2000). Young’s attorney has
filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967). Although counsel states that there are no meritorious
issues for appeal, he challenges the adequacy of the Fed. R. Crim.
P. 11 plea colloquy. The Government elected not to file a formal
brief. Although informed of his right to file a supplemental
brief, Young has not done so. In accordance with Anders, we have
considered the brief and examined the entire record for meritorious
issues.
Young argues that the district court did not conduct an
adequate Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 plea colloquy. Because Young failed
to object or move to withdraw his guilty plea, we review his plea
hearing for plain error. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517,
524-27 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 899 (2002).
The record reveals that the district court explained to Young
the charges against him, the maximum penalties he faced, the
applicability of the sentencing guidelines, and the various rights
he was waiving by pleading guilty. Young acknowledged his
understanding of the court’s explanation, did not object to the
Government’s factual basis for the plea, and stated that he was
satisfied with the services of his attorney. Thus, we find that
the district court conducted an adequate Rule 11 plea colloquy.
2
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record
on appeal and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm Young’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. 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 argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3