UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4779
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
WILLIAM ERIC FRAZIER, a/k/a Eric William
Frazier, a/k/a Frank Green, a/k/a William
Henderson, a/k/a William Henson,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(CR-04-62)
Submitted: March 28, 2005 Decided: April 14, 2005
Before SHEDD and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
A. Peter Shahid, Jr., SHAHID LAW OFFICE, LLC, Charleston, South
Carolina, for Appellant. Jonathan S. Gasser, Acting United States
Attorney, Alston C. Badger, Assistant United States Attorney,
Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
William Eric Frazier appeals his conviction for
possession of a firearm affecting interstate commerce, after having
been convicted of a crime punishable by a term of imprisonment
exceeding one year, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1),
924(a)(2), and 924(e) (2000). He asserts that the district court
erred by finding an adequate factual basis for his guilty plea
under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 and by not permitting him to withdraw his
plea.
Our review of the record discloses that, after filing a motion
to withdraw his plea, Frazier subsequently moved to withdraw the
motion, which the district court granted. Accordingly, the
district court properly did not act on Frazier’s motion to withdraw
his plea. Frazier’s Rule 11 challenge to his guilty plea thus
constitutes a challenge to forfeited error, which is properly
reviewed for plain error. See United States v. General, 278 F.3d
387, 394 (4th Cir. 2002); United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517,
524 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 899 (2002).
Under the plain error standard, this court determines
(1) whether there was error; (2) whether it was plain; (3) whether
it affected Frazier’s substantial rights; and (4) whether, if the
first three criteria are met, this court should exercise its
discretion to notice the error. Martinez, 277 F.3d at 529 (citing
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993)).
- 2 -
A review of the transcript of the guilty plea hearing
confirms that the district court fully complied with the
requirements of Rule 11, including a determination of the factual
basis for the plea under the elements of the offense charged.
Thus, we find no error committed by the district court.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is
affirmed. 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 -