UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4378
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JAMIE GIST,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (7:04-cr-00840-HMH)
Submitted: August 31, 2006 Decided: September 5, 2006
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
C. Carlyle Steele, Greenville, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Jamie Gist pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with
intent to distribute and to distribute more than fifty grams of
crack cocaine and more than five kilograms of cocaine, in violation
of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000); operating a stash house, in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(1), (a)(2) (West Supp. 2006); and possession
with intent to distribute more than fifty grams of crack cocaine,
in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000). The district court
sentenced Gist to 151 months of imprisonment, the bottom of the
properly calculated advisory sentencing guidelines range. Gist’s
counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), stating that, in his view, there are no
meritorious issues for appeal but challenging the adequacy of the
plea colloquy. Gist was informed of his right to file a pro se
supplemental brief but has not done so. We affirm.
Counsel questions whether the district court complied
with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, in accepting Gist’s guilty plea. Because
Gist did not move to withdraw his guilty plea, we review his
challenge to the adequacy of the Rule 11 hearing for plain error.
United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). We
have carefully reviewed the transcript of the Rule 11 hearing and
find no error in the district court’s acceptance of Gist’s guilty
plea.
- 2 -
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record for any meritorious issues and have found none.
Accordingly, we affirm Gist’s convictions and sentence. This court
requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his 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 -