UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4133
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
TULIO DANILO SOLARES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.
(7:06-cr-00151-3)
Submitted: August 30, 2007 Decided: September 5, 2007
Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David Seay, Jr., LAW OFFICE OF DAVID SEAY, JR., LLC, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Elizabeth Jean Howard, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tulio Danilo Solares pled guilty to conspiracy to possess
with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21
U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846 (2000), and was sentenced to
108 months imprisonment. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are
no meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioning whether the
district court fully complied with the requirements of Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11. Although informed of his right to file a supplemental
pro se brief, Solares has not done so.
Because Solares 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) (holding that “plain
error analysis is the proper standard for review of forfeited error
in the Rule 11 context”). Our review of the record leads us to
conclude that the district court fully complied with the mandate of
Rule 11 in accepting Solares’ guilty plea.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
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,
- 2 -
but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
counsel may move 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 in the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -