UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4773
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CORNELIUS DANIELS, a/k/a Big Worm,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District
Judge. (2:05-cr-00135)
Submitted: December 21, 2006 Decided: January 4, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David B. Betts, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Reginald
I. Lloyd, United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, Carlton
R. Bourne, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Pursuant to a plea agreement, Cornelius L. Daniels pled
guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 500 grams
or more of cocaine and 50 grams or more of cocaine base, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846 (2000). The district court
sentenced Daniels to 292 months’ imprisonment. Daniels appealed,
and counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), contending there are no meritorious issues for
appeal but seeking review of whether Daniels’ guilty plea was
knowing and voluntary. Although he received notice of his right to
file a pro se supplemental brief, Daniels did not file a brief.
The Government elected not to file a responsive brief. We affirm.
In the Anders brief, counsel recognizes the district
court substantially complied with the requirements of Fed. R. Crim.
P. 11 but suggests the court erred when it did not advise Daniels
of his right to persist in his initial plea of not guilty or
expressly discuss a waiver of appellate rights in Daniels’ plea
agreement.
This Court generally reviews the adequacy of a guilty
plea proceeding de novo. See United States v. Damon, 191 F.3d 561,
564 n.2 (4th Cir. 1999). Any variance from the Rule 11
requirements that does not affect the substantial rights of the
defendant is disregarded. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(h); United
States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 117 (4th Cir. 1991). When a
- 2 -
defendant fails to move to withdraw his guilty plea, but instead
raises the issue for the first time on appeal, we review for plain
error, and Appellant must show: (1) error; (2) that was plain;
(3) that affected his substantial rights; and (4) that the Court
should exercise its discretion to notice the error. United
States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 529, 532 (4th Cir. 2002). To
establish his substantial rights were affected, Daniels must
demonstrate that absent the error, he would not have entered his
guilty plea. Id. at 532.
With these standards in mind and after careful review of
the record, we conclude any alleged error by the district court in
conducting the Rule 11 hearing did not affect Daniels’ substantial
rights. We therefore find no plain error.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm Daniels’ conviction and sentence. This court
requires that counsel inform Daniels, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review.
If Daniels 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 Daniels.
- 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 -