United States v. York , 290 F. App'x 556 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4422
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DEMETRIE A. YORK,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(4:07-cr-00481-TLW-6)
Submitted: August 21, 2008 Decided: August 25, 2008
Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David B. Betts, LAW OFFICES OF DAVID B. BETTS, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellant. Arthur Bradley 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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, Demetrie A. York pled
guilty to conspiracy to distribute fifty grams or more of crack
cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000). He was sentenced
to 122 months of imprisonment and a five-year term of supervised
release. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that, in his opinion,
there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but raising the issue
of whether the district court complied with the requirements of
Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting York’s guilty plea. Although
advised of his right to file a pro se brief, York has not done so.
We affirm.
York did not move in the district court to withdraw his
guilty plea, therefore his challenge to the adequacy of the Rule 11
hearing is reviewed for plain error. See United States v.
Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). We have carefully
reviewed the transcript of the Rule 11 hearing and find no plain
error in the district court’s acceptance of York’s guilty plea.
See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 119-20 (4th Cir. 1991).
Moreover, York is bound by the statements he made at the Rule 11
hearing, see Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 74 (1977), and we
find no evidence that York’s plea was not knowing or voluntary.
See United States v. Marin, 961 F.2d 493, 496 (4th Cir. 1992);
United States v. Wessells, 936 F.2d 165, 167-68 (4th Cir. 1991).
2
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm York’s conviction and sentence. This
court requires that counsel inform York, in writing, of his right
to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If York 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 York.
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