Vacated by Supreme Court, March 21, 2005
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4121
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ANDRE RICE,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 03-4233
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ANDRE RICE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (CR-01-886)
Submitted: December 18, 2003 Decided: January 15, 2004
Before LUTTIG, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Barlow Loggins, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. James Strom Thurmond,
Jr., United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina; Elizabeth
Jean Howard, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville,
South Carolina.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Andre Rice pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with
intent to distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846
(2000). He was sentenced to 210 months imprisonment and five years
of supervised release. Rice’s attorney has filed a brief in
accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating
that, in his view, there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but
raising the issue as to whether the district court erred in denying
Rice’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Rice has filed a pro se
supplemental brief.
On appeal, Rice asserts that the district court erred in
denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. We review this
claim for abuse of discretion. United States v. Ubakanma, 215 F.3d
421, 424 (4th Cir. 2000). Because we find that the Rule 11
proceeding was adequate, and Rice failed to provide a fair and just
reason to withdraw his guilty plea, we find no abuse of discretion
by the district court in its failure to allow the withdrawal.
United States v. Lambey, 974 F.2d 1389, 1394 (4th Cir. 1992);
United States v. Moore, 931 F.2d 245, 248 (4th Cir. 1991).
In accordance with the requirements of Anders, we have
reviewed the record for potential error and have found none. We
further find no merit to the claims raised in Rice’s pro se
supplemental brief. Therefore, we affirm Rice’s conviction and
sentence. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in
- 3 -
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 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 in the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 4 -