UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4052
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CINQUE DONALDSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge.
(1:09-cr-00220-CCB-1)
Submitted: January 25, 2011 Decided: February 22, 2011
Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas J. Saunders, LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS J. SAUNDERS,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Kwame Jangha Manley,
Assistant United States Attorney, Thiruvendran Vignarajah,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Cinque Donaldson pleaded guilty to three counts of
possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, in violation
of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (2006); possession of a firearm in
furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 924(c) (2006); and possession of a firearm after having
previously been convicted of a crime punishable by a term of
imprisonment exceeding one year, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(1) (2006). The district court sentenced Donaldson to a
total of 300 months of imprisonment and he now appeals. His
appellate attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning whether the
district court erred in denying Donaldson’s suppression motion
and whether Donaldson should be allowed to withdraw his guilty
plea. Donaldson has filed a pro se brief raising additional
issues. * Finding no error, we affirm.
Counsel first argues that the district court erred in
denying Donaldson’s suppression motion. However, when a
defendant enters a voluntary guilty plea, he waives his right to
challenge antecedent, nonjurisdictional errors not logically
inconsistent with the establishment of guilt. See Menna v. New
*
We have considered the issues raised in Donaldson’s pro se
brief and conclude they lack merit.
2
York, 423 U.S. 61, 62-63 (1975); Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S.
258, 267 (1973) (when defendant pleads guilty voluntarily, he
waives challenges to deprivations of constitutional rights
occurring prior to guilty plea).
Prior to accepting a guilty plea, a trial court,
through colloquy with the defendant, must inform the defendant
of, and determine that he understands, the nature of the charges
to which the plea is offered, any mandatory minimum penalty, the
maximum possible penalty he faces, and the various rights he is
relinquishing by pleading guilty. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b). The
court also must determine whether there is a factual basis for
the plea. Id.; United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 120 (4th
Cir. 1991). The purpose of the Rule 11 colloquy is to ensure
that the plea of guilt is entered into knowingly and
voluntarily. See United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 58 (2002).
Because Donaldson did not move in the district court to withdraw
his guilty plea, any error in the Rule 11 hearing is reviewed
for plain error. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525
(4th Cir. 2002).
We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude
that the district court conducted a complete Rule 11 colloquy
and that Donaldson’s plea of guilty was knowing and voluntary.
Therefore, Donaldson waived any challenge to the district
court’s denial of his suppression motion.
3
Counsel next questions whether Donaldson should be
allowed to withdraw his guilty plea and enter a plea of guilty
to only one count. However, we have concluded that Donaldson’s
guilty plea was knowing and voluntary. Our review of the record
further reveals that there is no basis upon which Donaldson can
withdraw his plea of guilty to the charges.
We have examined the entire record in accordance with
the requirements of Anders and have found no meritorious issues
for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court and deny counsel’s motion to withdraw. This court
requires that counsel inform Donaldson, in writing, of the right
to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Donaldson 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 Donaldson. 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
4