UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4862
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
NAKIA OLIPHANT, a/k/a Mont,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (3:06-cr-00061-JFA-17)
Submitted: December 21, 2010 Decided: January 3, 2011
Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David B. Betts, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Jimmie
Ewing, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Nakia Oliphant pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute
more than five kilograms of cocaine and more than fifty grams of
crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006). The
district court sentenced Oliphant to a 240-month mandatory
minimum sentence. His attorney has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there
are no meritorious issues for appeal but asking the court to
review the district court’s compliance with Fed. R. Crim. P.
11’s requirements. Oliphant was informed of his right to file a
pro se supplemental brief, but he did not do so. For the
reasons that follow, we affirm.
Oliphant did not move in the district court to
withdraw his guilty plea. Thus our review is limited to plain
error. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir.
2002). To prevail, Oliphant “must show: (1) an error was made;
(2) the error is plain; and (3) the error affects substantial
rights.” United States v. Massenburg, 564 F.3d 337, 342-43 (4th
Cir. 2009).
Counsel notes that the district court did not
expressly advise Oliphant of his right to persist in his plea of
not guilty. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1)(B). Nevertheless,
the court advised Oliphant he had the right to plead not guilty,
he received significant concessions for his guilty plea, and he
2
does not argue that he would have invoked his right to a trial
had the district court so advised him. Additionally, Oliphant
claims that the district court erred by failing to question him
after he represented that he had been guaranteed a specific
sentence by someone. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(2). Oliphant
stated that he understood the court would determine his
sentence. Moreover the district court correctly advised
Oliphant of the maximum and minimum sentences, and he received
the mandatory minimum sentence. Accordingly, Oliphant has
failed to show any impairment to his substantial rights. United
States v. Goins, 51 F.3d 400, 402-03 (4th Cir. 1995).
We have examined the entire record in accordance with
the requirements of Anders and have found no meritorious issues
for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.
This court requires that counsel inform Oliphant, in writing, of
the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Oliphant 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 Oliphant. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
3
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4