UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4292
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
FELECITAL VALLADARES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (CR-03-703)
Submitted: July 11, 2005 Decided: January 24, 2006
Before LUTTIG, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John G. Reckenbeil, HODGE LAW FIRM, P.A., Spartanburg, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Felecital Valladares appeals from her conviction and
sentence entered pursuant to her guilty plea to conspiracy to
possess with intent to distribute cocaine and marijuana. Her
counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues
for appeal, but raising the issue of whether the Fed. R. Crim. P.
11 hearing was properly conducted. Valladares was informed of her
right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but she has not done so.
In district court, Valladares did not challenge the
voluntariness of her plea or the adequacy of the court’s Rule 11
hearing. Accordingly, this claim is reviewed for plain error.
United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). 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). We find that the record establishes that the Rule 11
hearing was adequate and that the district court did not err in
accepting Valladares’ plea.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm Valladares’ 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,
- 2 -
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 -