UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4974
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
KENNETH O. LANGLEY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief
District Judge. (CR-04-73)
Submitted: October 31, 2006 Decided: November 21, 2006
Before TRAXLER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David B. Betts, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Frank
DeArmon Whitney, United States Attorney, Anne Margaret Hayes,
Assistant United States Attorney, Kimberly Ann Moore, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Kenneth O. Langley appeals his conviction and sentence
following a guilty plea to conspiracy to possess with intent to
distribute more than fifty grams of cocaine base, in violation of
18 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846 (2000). Langley’s attorney on
appeal has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for
appeal, but raising as potential issues whether the district court
complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 and whether the district court
erred in considering a prior uncounseled conviction in determining
Langley’s criminal history points. Langley filed a pro se
supplemental brief. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
First, counsel raises the issue of whether the district
court fully complied with Rule 11, but identifies no error in the
Rule 11 proceeding and concludes that there was full compliance
with the Rule. After a thorough review of the record, we similarly
find that the district court complied with the requirements of Rule
11.
Next, counsel questions whether the district court erred
in considering a prior uncounseled misdemeanor plea conviction that
resulted in a thirty-day suspended sentence in calculating
Langley’s criminal history points. A defendant may challenge at
sentencing the validity of a prior conviction on the ground that he
was denied counsel. Custis v. United States, 511 U.S. 485, 495
- 2 -
(1994). However, he bears the burden of showing that the prior
conviction is invalid. United States v. Jones, 977 F.2d 105, 110-
11 (4th Cir. 1992). Langley had to overcome the presumption that
the state court informed him of his right to counsel as it was
required by statute to do and that, if he was not represented, it
was because he waived his right to counsel. See Parke v. Raley,
506 U.S. 20, 28-34 (1992). We find the district court did not err
in finding Langley failed to overcome the presumption that the
state court informed him of his right to counsel. Thus, the court
did not err by considering the prior conviction in calculating
Langley’s criminal history.
We find Langley’s claims in his pro se supplemental brief
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 Langley’s conviction 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
- 3 -
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 4 -