UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-4856
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CURTIS FIELDS, a/k/a Ann Dan,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort. Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District
Judge. (CR-00-263)
Submitted: January 30, 2004 Decided: February 17, 2004
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas D. “Val” Guest, Jr., PARSONS, OUVERSON, STARK, GUEST &
NEILL, P.A., Murrells Inlet, South Carolina, for Appellant. Nancy
Chastain Wicker, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Curtis Fields appeals his conviction after a guilty plea
and 120-month sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to
distribute crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)
(2000). Counsel for Fields has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no
meritorious issues for appeal, but presenting one issue for this
Court’s review. Fields was notified of his right to file a pro se
supplemental brief, but he has not done so. Finding no error, we
affirm.
Counsel suggests that the district court did not comply
with the dictates of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting Fields’s
plea. Fields did not object during the plea colloquy, nor did he
move to withdraw his guilty plea. Accordingly, Fields’s
allegations are reviewed for plain error. See United States v.
Vonn, 535 U.S. 55 (2002); United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517,
527 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 899 (2002). To meet the
plain error standard, (1) there must be an error; (2) the error
must be plain, meaning obvious or clear under current law; and
(3) the error must affect substantial rights. United States v.
Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732-34 (1993). Even if these criteria are
met, an error will not be noticed unless it seriously affects the
fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the proceeding. Id.
at 736. In light of the thorough plea colloquy by the district
- 2 -
court, we conclude that the court did not violate Rule 11 in
accepting Fields’s plea.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
for reversible error and have found none. Therefore, we affirm
Fields’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 -