United States v. Ibn Scott , 457 F. App'x 233 ( 2011 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-5288
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
IBN MUHAMMED SCOTT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort. Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District
Judge. (9:08-cr-00583-SB-5)
Submitted: November 30, 2011 Decided: December 8, 2011
Before WILKINSON, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles T. Brooks III, THE BROOKS LAW OFFICES, LLC, Sumter,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Alston Calhoun Badger, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ibn Muhammed Scott pled guilty to possession with
intent to distribute and distribution of cocaine, in violation
of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) (West Supp. 2011). He
received a 150-month sentence. Counsel for Scott has filed a
brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
certifying that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but
questioning whether Scott’s guilty plea was knowing and
voluntary. Scott has filed a pro se supplemental brief raising
numerous issues. The Government has declined to file a
response. For the reasons that follow, we affirm Scott’s
conviction and sentence, and remand to the district court.
Because Scott did not move to withdraw his guilty plea
in the district court, the colloquy is reviewed for plain error.
United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 524–27 (4th Cir. 2002).
Prior to accepting a defendant’s guilty plea, a district court
must address the defendant in open court and ensure he
understands, among other things, the nature of the charge
against him, the possible punishment he faces, and the rights he
relinquishes by pleading guilty. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1).
The court must also ensure that a sufficient factual basis
exists to support the plea, Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(3), and that
the plea is knowing and voluntary, Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(2).
2
Our review of the plea hearing transcript reveals no plain error
in the colloquy conducted by the district court.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case as well as the issues Scott raises in his pro se
supplemental brief and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. However, the judgment in this case reflects that Scott
pled guilty to Count Eleven of the superseding indictment,
charging him with possession with intent to distribute and
distribution of cocaine base. Scott, in fact, pled guilty to
possession with intent to distribute and distribution of
cocaine. Accordingly, we affirm Scott’s conviction and
sentence, but remand so that the written judgment can be
corrected to reflect the offense to which Scott pled guilty--
possession with intent to distribute and distribution of
cocaine. * This court requires that counsel inform Scott, in
writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Scott 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
*
Because both are offenses under 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1),
and carry the same penalties, 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(b)(1)(C), the
clerical error in the judgment did not affect Scott’s sentence
or otherwise prejudice him.
3
state that a copy thereof was served on Scott. 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 AND REMANDED
4