UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4038
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
VENSON TYRONE JONES, a/k/a Roanay,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Aiken. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior District
Judge. (1:10-cr-00968-MBS-11)
Submitted: August 29, 2013 Decided: September 3, 2013
Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Janis Richardson Hall, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellant. Julius Ness Richardson, Assistant United States
Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Venson Tyrone Jones pled guilty to conspiracy to
possess with intent to distribute twenty-eight grams or more of
cocaine. He received a fifty-one-month sentence. On appeal,
counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there are no meritorious grounds for
appeal, but raising the issue of whether the district court
adequately complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 when it accepted
Jones’s guilty plea. Although informed of his right to do so,
Jones has not filed a supplemental brief. The Government
declined to file a response. We affirm.
Because Jones did not move to withdraw his plea, we
review his Rule 11 hearing for plain error. * United States v.
Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). Here, we find no
error, as the district court substantially complied with Rule 11
when accepting Jones’s plea. Given no indication to the
contrary, we therefore find that Jones’s plea was knowing and
voluntary, and, consequently, final and binding. See United
States v. Lambey, 974 F.2d 1389, 1394 (4th Cir. 1992).
*
Jones filed a motion to withdraw his plea before new
counsel was appointed for him. The court noted that Jones had
filed the motion pro se and stated that it would not hear the
motion unless new counsel moved to go forward with it. Neither
new counsel nor Jones raised the motion again at plea
proceedings or sentencing.
2
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm Jones’s conviction and sentence. This court
requires that counsel inform Jones, in writing, of the 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 this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3