United States v. Randall , 286 F. App'x 10 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4496
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHRISTOPHER JUNIOR RANDALL, a/k/a Chris,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(4:06-cr-00583-TLW)
Submitted: July 31, 2008 Decided: August 4, 2008
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert L. Hallman, Jr., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant.
Reginald I. Lloyd, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia,
South Carolina, Rose Mary Sheppard Parham, Assistant United States
Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Pursuant to a plea agreement, Christopher Junior Randall
pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to
distribute fifty grams or more of cocaine base (crack), in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000). The district court sentenced
him to 324 months of imprisonment. Randall’s counsel has filed a
brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
challenging the adequacy of the plea colloquy but stating that, in
his view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Randall was
advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has
not done so. We affirm.
Counsel raises as a potential issue the adequacy of the
plea colloquy in light of the district court’s failure to inform
Randall that he had a right to persist in his plea of not guilty
under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1)(B) and that he would be protected
from compelled self-incrimination at a jury trial, Fed. R. Crim. P.
11(b)(1)(E). Because Randall did not move in the district court to
withdraw his guilty plea on the grounds raised on appeal, any error
in the Rule 11 hearing is reviewed for plain error. United
States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002) (discussing
standard of review). Our careful review of the record on appeal
convinces us that the district court’s omissions did not affect
Randall’s substantial rights. See id.; United States v. Goins, 51
F.3d 400, 402 (4th Cir. 1995) (discussing factors courts should
- 2 -
consider in determining whether substantial rights affected in
decision to plead guilty).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record for any meritorious issues and have found none.
Accordingly, we affirm Randall’s conviction and sentence. This
court requires that counsel inform Randall, in writing, of his
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Randall 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 Randall. 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 -