UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4075
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JAMES CURTIS ALFORD, a/k/a Carwash,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(4:10-cr-00066-RBH-2)
Submitted: September 13, 2011 Decided: September 15, 2011
Before AGEE, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Wesley Locklair, III, LOCKLAIR & LOCKLAIR, PC, Columbia,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
James Curtis Alford pleaded guilty, pursuant to a
written plea agreement, to possession with intent to distribute
and distribution of five grams or more of cocaine base, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2006). Alford was sentenced
to the statutory mandatory minimum of 120 months’ imprisonment.
See 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(b)(1)(B) (West 1999 & Supp. 2009)
(prescribing ten-year minimum for cases involving five grams or
more of cocaine base and prior felony drug conviction) (current
version at 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(b)(1)(B) (West Supp. 2011)).
Appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts there are
no meritorious issues for appeal but questions the adequacy of
the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing. Finding no error, we affirm.
Because the Government has not sought enforcement of
the appellate waiver, we are not precluded from reviewing the
claims raised in this appeal. United States v. Poindexter, 492
F.3d 263, 271 (4th Cir. 2007) (stating that, if Anders brief is
filed in case with appeal waiver, Government’s failure to
respond “allow[s] this court to perform the required Anders
review”). Initially, counsel questions whether the district
court complied with the requirements of Rule 11 but concludes
there was no error by the court. As Alford did not seek to
withdraw his guilty plea in the district court or otherwise
2
preserve any alleged Rule 11 error by timely objection, review
by the court is for plain error. United States v. Dominguez
Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 76 (2004); United States v. Martinez, 277
F.3d 517, 524-25 (4th Cir. 2002). To establish plain error, the
defendant must show that an error occurred, that the error was
plain, and that the error affected his substantial rights.
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732-34 (1993); United
States v. Massenburg, 564 F.3d 337, 342-43 (4th Cir. 2009)
(stating that defendant bears burden of establishing each of the
plain error requirements). We have reviewed the record and
conclude that the district court committed no reversible error
in conducting the Rule 11 hearing.
Alford filed a pro se supplemental brief questioning
whether the district court erred in failing to apply the safety
valve provision under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5C1.2
(2010). The court did not err because Alford had more than the
one criminal history point, which removes him from safety valve
eligibility.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in
writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If the client requests that a
3
petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition
would be frivolous, then counsel may move this court for leave
to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state
that a copy thereof was served on the client. 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