UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4567
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RAYNARD ALLEN JENKINS, a/k/a Nard, a/k/a Hemi, a/k/a News,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(4:13-cr-00446-RBH-1)
Submitted: March 30, 2015 Decided: April 9, 2015
Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joshua Snow Kendrick, KENDRICK & LEONARD, P.C., Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Alfred William Walker Bethea,
Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Raynard Allen Jenkins appeals his conviction and 170-month
sentence imposed by the district court after he pled guilty to
conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to
distribute 280 grams or more of cocaine base, 500 grams or more
of cocaine, and a quantity of marijuana, all in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846 (2012). Jenkins’ counsel has
filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), stating that he has found no meritorious grounds for
appeal but raising as potential issues the adequacy of the plea
hearing and the reasonableness of Jenkins’ sentence. Although
informed of his right to do so, Jenkins has not filed a pro se
supplemental brief. We affirm.
Having reviewed the transcript of the plea colloquy for
plain error, we conclude that the district court substantially
complied with the requirements of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, and that
the court’s failure to inform Jenkins of the potential
immigration consequences of his plea did not affect his
substantial rights. See Henderson v. United States, 133 S. Ct.
1121, 1126-27 (2013) (providing standard); see also United
States v. Davila, 133 S. Ct. 2139, 2147 (2013) (applying
standard in guilty plea context). Our review also leaves us
with no doubt that the district court’s imposition of a sentence
2
of 170 months’ imprisonment is procedurally and substantively
reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record for any meritorious grounds for appeal and have found
none. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
This court requires that counsel inform Jenkins, in writing, of
his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Jenkins requests that a petition be filed,
but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,
counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Jenkins. 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