UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4132
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
TANISHA M. BAILEY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District
Judge. (CR-03-305)
Submitted: July 8, 2005 Decided: August 4, 2005
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Neil Kuchinsky, KUCHINSKY & YEAMANS, P.C., Colonial Heights,
Virginia, for Appellant. Peter Sinclair Duffey, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Tanisha M. Bailey appeals her conviction and twenty-one
month sentence following her guilty plea to aiding and assisting in
the preparation of a false tax return, in violation of 26 U.S.C.
§ 7206 (2000). In her appeal, filed pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), counsel for Bailey claims to have
found no non-frivolous claims for appeal, but argues that the
magistrate judge erred in accepting Bailey’s guilty plea. Bailey
was notified of her opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief
but has not done so. Finding no error, we affirm.
Bailey did not seek to withdraw her guilty plea in the
district court. Accordingly, we review this claim for plain error.
See United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002)
(holding that “plain error analysis is the proper standard for
review of forfeited error in the Rule 11 context”). A plea is
presumed to be final and binding if the Rule 11 hearing is
adequate. United States v. Puckett, 61 F.3d 1092, 1099 (4th Cir.
1995). Our review of the magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation details a thorough Rule 11 colloquy that assured
Bailey’s plea was made both knowingly and voluntarily. See United
States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 117, 120 (4th Cir. 1991).
Accordingly, we find Bailey’s guilty plea was knowing and voluntary
and properly accepted by the magistrate judge.
- 2 -
Finding no meritorious issues upon our review of the
record, we affirm Bailey’s conviction 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
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 -