United States v. Leach , 231 F. App'x 293 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-5252
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ROMAIL LEACH,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(4:05-cr-00770-TLW)
Submitted: May 25, 2007 Decided July 5, 2007
Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ray Coit Yarborough, Jr., Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant.
Reginald I. Lloyd, United States Attorney, Columbia, South
Carolina, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Romail Leach appeals his thirty-two year sentence imposed
following his guilty plea and convictions for firearm offenses
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(2000). His attorney filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Though
notified of his opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief,
Leach has not done so. The Government has declined to file a
responding brief. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
Leach suggests that the district court erred by not fully
complying with Fed. R. Crim P. 11 at the guilty plea hearing,
pointing out subsections that the district court purportedly
overlooked. Leach has never sought to withdraw his guilty plea,
and we therefore review his allegations for plain error. See
United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525-26 (4th Cir. 2002).
While the district court may not have read verbatim from the rule,
the court nevertheless ensured that Leach fully understood the
significance of his guilty plea and that the plea was knowing and
voluntary. After questioning Leach about the charges, his
attorney’s services, the rights that he was giving up by pleading
guilty, the advisory guidelines ranges, the maximum penalties, and
relevant conduct, the court found Leach fully competent and capable
of entering an informed plea. Any purported error was not
material, did not affect Leach’s substantial rights, and did not
affect the fairness of the proceedings. See United States v.
Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-32 (1993). The district court
satisfactorily complied with its Rule 11 obligations, and we
therefore reject Leach’s challenge to the integrity of his guilty
plea.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm Leach’s convictions and sentence. This court
requires that counsel inform Leach, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review.
If Leach 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 Leach.
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 -