UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4720
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMES ALBERT JONES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (8:06-cr-01264-HMH-1)
Submitted: January 15, 2009 Decided: January 22, 2009
Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mario A. Pacella, STROM LAW FIRM, L.L.C., Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellant. Maxwell B. Cauthen, III, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James Albert Jones pled guilty to possession of a
firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 922(g)(1), 924(e) (2006). He was sentenced to the mandatory
minimum of 180 months’ imprisonment and a five-year term of
supervised release. * Jones’ counsel has filed an appeal under
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that, in his
opinion, there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but raising
the issue of whether Jones entered his guilty plea knowingly and
voluntarily. Jones specifically challenges the district court’s
failure to vacate the plea when Jones stated at sentencing that
he did not understand his mandatory minimum sentence. The
Government declined to file a brief. Jones has filed a pro se
supplemental brief. Finding no error, we affirm.
In the absence of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea,
we review the adequacy of the guilty plea pursuant to Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11 for plain error. United States v. Martinez, 277
F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). A review of the transcript of
Jones’ guilty plea hearing reveals that the district court fully
complied with the requirements of Rule 11. Jones’ plea was
*
The district court granted Jones’ 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2006)
motion raising a claim under United States v. Peak, 992 F.2d 39,
42 (4th Cir. 1993), and reinstated judgment for purposes of
allowing Jones to file an appeal.
2
knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made, with full
knowledge of the consequences attendant to his guilty plea.
Specifically, we find the district court informed Jones of the
statutory mandatory minimum sentence he faced and Jones
acknowledged that he understood. We therefore find no plain
error. We further find no merit to Jones’ claim in his pro se
supplemental brief.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm Jones’ conviction and sentence.
This court requires that counsel inform Jones, in writing, of
his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Jones 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 Jones. 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