UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4623
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
TERRY LEE WILLIAMS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (7:05-cr-01003-HMH-3)
Submitted: October 27, 2006 Decided: January 11, 2007
Before MICHAEL, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Janis Richardson Hall, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Terry Lee Williams appeals from his conviction and
118-month sentence entered after his guilty plea to conspiracy to
distribute and to possess with intent to distribute cocaine. On
appeal, Williams’ attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), finding no meritorious issues for
appeal but discussing the adequacy of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11
colloquy. Williams was informed of his right to file a pro se
supplemental brief, and he has filed a letter stating that he “got
too much time” and questioning the presentence report’s (“PSR”)
determinations as to the “part I play” and “the amount of drug.”
After a close review of the record, we affirm.
Because Williams did not move in district court to
withdraw his guilty plea, we review his challenge to the adequacy
of the Rule 11 hearing for plain error. See United States v.
Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 524-25 (4th Cir. 2002). Prior to accepting
a guilty plea, the trial court must ensure the defendant
understands the nature of the charges against him, the mandatory
minimum and maximum sentences, and various other rights, so it is
clear that the defendant is knowingly and voluntarily entering his
plea. The court must also determine whether there is a factual
basis for the plea. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1), (3); United
States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116, 120 (4th Cir. 1991). Counsel
does not specify any deficiencies in the Rule 11 inquiry, and our
- 2 -
review of the plea hearing transcript reveals that the district
court conducted a thorough Rule 11 colloquy that assured that
Williams’ plea was both knowing and voluntary.
As discussed above, Williams appears to challenge the
district court’s factual findings regarding drug quantity and
leadership role. However, there were no objections at sentencing.
Without an affirmative showing by the defendant that information in
the PSR is inaccurate, the district court is free to adopt the
PSR’s findings without more specific inquiry or explanation.
United States v. Terry, 916 F.2d 157, 162 (4th Cir. 1990). On
appeal, Williams offers no indication, beyond his conclusory
allegations, that the PSR was incorrect. Thus, the district court
did not err in adopting the PSR.
This court requires that counsel inform her 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 -