UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-5109
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DERRICK E. JOHNSON,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:06-cr-00523-REP-1)
Submitted: September 30, 2008 Decided: October 21, 2008
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Frances H.
Pratt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Alexandria, Virginia,
for Appellant. Chuck Rosenberg, United States Attorney, Richard
D. Cooke, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Derrick E. Johnson pled guilty to two counts of
possessing with intent to distribute cocaine base “crack” and to
one count of possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug
trafficking crime under 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c) (West Supp. 2008).
Johnson was sentenced to 147 months of imprisonment:
eighty-seven months each for the drug counts, to be served
concurrently to each other, and sixty months on the firearm
count, to be served consecutively to the drug counts. On
appeal, Johnson’s sole issue is that he did not knowingly and
voluntarily plead guilty to the § 924(c) charge because the
district court * failed to advise him of the nature of the offense
and there was an insufficient factual basis to support the plea.
For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
Because he failed to challenge the propriety of his
plea colloquy in the district court, Johnson concedes we review
the issue for plain error. United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55,
58-59 (2002); United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 527 (4th
Cir. 2002). We find no reversible error as the record reveals
that Johnson was informed about the nature of the § 924(c)
offense, that there was a factual basis for the plea, and that
*
Johnson’s plea hearing was conducted by a magistrate judge
based on his waiver of his right to proceed before a district
judge for his Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing.
2
he knowingly and voluntarily pled guilty to the offense. United
States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116 (4th Cir. 1991); see United
States v. Wilson, 81 F.3d 1300, 1307 (4th Cir 1996) (“The Court
has repeatedly refused to script the Rule 11 colloquy, relying
rather on the experience and wisdom of the district judges
below.”).
Accordingly, we affirm. 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