UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4226
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DEMAINE DIWAN BENJAMIN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(4:07-cr-01427-TLW-1)
Submitted: February 24, 2011 Decided: March 18, 2011
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Janis Richardson Hall, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellant. Arthur Bradley Parham, Rose Mary Sheppard Parham,
Assistant United States Attorneys, Florence, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Demaine Diwan Benjamin appeals his conviction
following his guilty plea to one count of conspiracy to possess
with intent to distribute fifty grams or more of cocaine base in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006). Benjamin’s counsel filed a
brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744
(1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal
but questioning whether the district court complied with Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11 in accepting Benjamin’s guilty plea. Benjamin filed
a pro se supplemental brief challenging whether a sufficient
factual basis exists to support his guilty plea, and whether he
was denied the right to a speedy trial. We affirm.
Because Benjamin did not move in the district court to
withdraw his guilty plea, the Rule 11 hearing is reviewed for
plain error. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th
Cir. 2002). We conclude that the district court fully complied
with the requirements of Rule 11 in accepting Benjamin’s guilty
plea. The district court properly informed Benjamin of the
rights he was forfeiting as a result of his plea and the nature
of the charges and penalties he faced, and found that Benjamin
was competent and entering his plea voluntarily. 1 The record
1
Benjamin’s plea agreement contained a stipulation,
pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C), to a sentence between
188 to 235 months’ imprisonment. Under Rule 11(c)(1)(C), when
(Continued)
2
establishes Benjamin knowingly and voluntarily entered into his
guilty plea with a full understanding of the consequences, and
that the district court ensured the existence of a sufficient
factual basis. Therefore, there was no error in the district
court’s acceptance of the plea. 2
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm Benjamin’s conviction and sentence.
This court requires that counsel inform Benjamin, in writing, of
the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Benjamin 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 Benjamin. We dispense with oral argument because
the Government agrees that a specific sentence or range is
appropriate, or that a particular guideline provision or
sentencing factor does not apply, such a recommendation binds
the court once the court accepts the plea agreement. If the
district court later rejects the stipulated provision, it must
give the defendant an opportunity to withdraw the plea, and
advise the defendant that he may face a more severe sentence
than anticipated by the plea agreement. Fed. R. Crim. P.
11(c)(5); United States v. Lewis, __ F.3d __, 2011 WL 310805, at
*6 (4th Cir. Feb. 2, 2011).
2
We have examined Benjamin’s pro se claims, and conclude
that they entitle him to no relief.
3
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4