UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-5207
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DERRICK BYRD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (CR-03-1092)
Submitted: May 22, 2006 Decided: June 7, 2006
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert N. Boorda, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Regan
Alexandra Pendleton, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Derrick Byrd pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to
possess with intent to distribute and to distribute five kilograms
or more of cocaine and fifty grams or more of crack cocaine, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846 (2000). Byrd
was classified as a career offender under the Sentencing
Guidelines.1 The district court sentenced Byrd to 180 months of
imprisonment, below the applicable advisory Guideline range of
262-327 months, based on the short period of time Byrd was involved
in the conspiracy. 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.
Byrd filed a pro se supplemental brief in which he asserts that the
district court erred in not granting an offense level reduction for
his minor role in the offense, and that the district court erred in
not applying the holding of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220
(2005), at sentencing. We affirm.
Because Byrd 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
1
U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (2004).
2
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
- 2 -
plea hearing transcript reveals that the district court conducted
a thorough Rule 11 colloquy that assured Byrd’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 Byrd’s guilty
plea was knowing and voluntary and properly accepted by the
district court.
We have also considered the assertions of error in Byrd’s
supplemental brief and find them to be without merit. In
accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this
case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore
affirm Byrd’s conviction and sentence. This court requires that
counsel inform Byrd, in writing, of the right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Byrd
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 Byrd.
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 -