UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-5063
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CORNELIUS MCDONALD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (3:05-cr-01217-MJP-1)
Submitted: August 20, 2009 Decided: September 3, 2009
Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Langdon D. Long, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Robert Claude Jendron, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Cornelius McDonald pled guilty to possession of a
firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2), (e) (2006), and was sentenced to 180
months in prison. McDonald timely appealed.
Counsel for McDonald filed a brief in accordance with
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that there
are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioning whether
McDonald was competent to enter his guilty plea. McDonald was
informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but
has not done so. Finding no error, we affirm.
In the absence of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea
in the district court, we review for plain error the adequacy of
the guilty plea proceeding under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11. United
States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). Our
examination of the record shows that the district court fully
complied with the requirements of Rule 11. McDonald’s plea was
knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered, and supported
by a factual basis. We therefore find no error.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court
requires that counsel inform McDonald, in writing, of the right
to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
2
review. If McDonald 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 McDonald.
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