UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4686
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LUKE W. PUGH,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Elkins. John Preston Bailey,
Chief District Judge. (2:10-cr-00025-JPB-JSK-1)
Submitted: December 9, 2011 Decided: December 16, 2011
Before AGEE and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
L. Richard Walker, Senior Litigator, Clarksburg, West Virginia,
for Appellant. Stephen Donald Warner, Assistant United States
Attorney, Elkins, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Luke W. Pugh pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea
agreement, to one count of making false statements,
representations, and certifications in documents required to be
maintained by the Mine Safety and Health Administration, in
violation of 30 U.S.C. § 820(f) (2006). The district court
calculated Pugh’s Guidelines range under the U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual (2010) at fifteen to twenty-one months’
imprisonment, imposed a downward variance, and sentenced Pugh to
imprisonment for one year and one day. On appeal, counsel has
filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal,
but questioning whether the district court plainly erred in
accepting Pugh’s guilty plea. Pugh was advised of his right to
file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not done so. The
Government declined to file a brief. We affirm.
Because Pugh did not move in the district court to
withdraw his guilty plea, the adequacy of the Fed. R. Crim. P.
11 hearing is reviewed for plain error. United States v.
Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 524-26 (4th Cir. 2002). Our review of
the transcript of the guilty plea hearing leads us to conclude
that the magistrate judge substantially complied with the
mandates of Rule 11 in accepting Pugh’s guilty plea and that the
court’s omissions did not affect Pugh’s substantial rights.
2
Critically, the transcript reveals that the magistrate judge
ensured the plea was supported by an independent factual basis
and Pugh entered the plea knowingly and voluntarily with an
understanding of the consequences. United States v. DeFusco,
949 F.2d 114, 116, 120 (4th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, we discern
no plain error in the district court’s acceptance of Pugh’s
guilty plea.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.
This court requires that counsel inform Pugh, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Pugh 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 Pugh.
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
3