UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4826
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
WILLIAM EDWARD MYERS, a/k/a Doc,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(CR-05-85)
Submitted: April 20, 2006 Decided: April 24, 2006
Before MICHAEL, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Parks N. Small, Federal Public Defender, Columbia, South Carolina,
for Appellant. Rose Mary Parham, Assistant United States Attorney,
Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
William Edward Myers pled guilty to one count of
conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute
fifty grams or more of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846 (2000). The Government filed a notice
of prior convictions pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 851 (2000), and Myers
was classified as a career offender under the Sentencing
Guidelines.1 The district court sentenced Myers to 262 months of
imprisonment, the bottom of the applicable advisory Guideline
range. On appeal, counsel filed an Anders2 brief, in which he
states there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but suggests
that the district court failed to comply with the requirements of
Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in the guilty plea hearing, and that Myers’
sentence is unreasonable. Myers was advised of his right to file
a pro se supplemental brief, but has not filed a brief. We affirm.
Because Myers did not move in the district court to
withdraw his guilty plea, his challenge to the adequacy of the Rule
11 hearing is reviewed for plain error. See United States v.
Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). Our review of the
plea hearing transcript reveals that the district court conducted
a thorough Rule 11 colloquy that assured Myers’ plea was made both
knowingly and voluntarily. See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d
1
U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (2004).
2
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
- 2 -
114, 117, 120 (4th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, we find Myers’ guilty
plea was knowing and voluntary and properly accepted by the
district court.
Counsel also suggests that Myers’ sentence is
unreasonable. Our review of the record convinces us that Myers was
properly classified as a career offender, and his Guideline range
was correctly determined to be 262 to 327 months of imprisonment.
United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 455-56 (4th Cir. 2006)
(footnote omitted) (discussing reasonableness standard). Moreover,
we find no error in the district court’s selection of the
particular sentence imposed in this case. Id. at 457 (stating that
“a sentence imposed within the properly calculated Guidelines range
is presumptively reasonable.”) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm Myers’ conviction and sentence. This
court requires that counsel inform Myers, in writing, of the right
to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Myers 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
Myers.
- 3 -
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
- 4 -