UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4616
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DERRICK LAMONT SMITH,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(4:05-cr-00892-TLW)
Submitted: January 17, 2008 Decided: January 22, 2008
Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David B. Betts, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Arthur
Bradley Parham, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Florence,
South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Derrick Lamont Smith pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea
agreement, to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to
distribute and to distribute one kilogram or more of heroin, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) (2000). The district
court sentenced Smith to the statutory minimum of 240 months of
imprisonment. Smith timely appealed.
On appeal, counsel filed an Anders* brief, in which he
states there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questions
whether the district court complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in
accepting Smith’s guilty plea. Smith was advised of his right to
file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not filed a brief. The
Government declined to file a brief. We affirm.
Smith did not move in the district court to withdraw his
guilty plea, therefore this court reviews his challenge to the
adequacy of the Rule 11 hearing for plain error. See United
States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (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 other various 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
*
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
- 2 -
States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116, 120 (4th Cir. 1991). Counsel
does not specify any deficiencies in the district court’s Rule 11
inquiry, and our review of the plea hearing transcript reveals that
the court conducted a thorough Rule 11 colloquy that assured
Smith’s plea was made both knowingly and voluntarily.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm Smith’s conviction and sentence. This court
requires that counsel inform Smith, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review.
If Smith 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 Smith.
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 -