United States v. Williams , 258 F. App'x 564 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4544
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DENNIS LEE WILLIAMS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Senior District
Judge. (4:02-cr-00806-CWH)
Submitted: November 28, 2007 Decided: December 20, 2007
Before KING and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
W. James Hoffmeyer, LAW OFFICE OF W. JAMES HOFFMEYER, Florence,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Arthur Bradley Parham, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Dennis Lee Williams appeals from the judgment imposed
after he pleaded guilty to armed robbery and possession of a
firearm during a crime of violence. Williams’ attorney has filed
a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738(1967). Williams has filed a pro se informal brief. The
Government declined to file a brief. Finding no error, we affirm.
The only issue counsel raises is whether the district
court erred in accepting Williams’ guilty plea. Because Williams
did not seek to withdraw his guilty plea, his allegations of Fed.
R. Crim. P. 11 error are reviewed for plain error. See United
States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525-26 (4th Cir. 2002) (holding
that “plain error analysis is the proper standard for review of
forfeited error in the Rule 11 context”). Under plain error
review, this court may only notice an error that was not preserved
by timely objection if the defendant can demonstrate: (1) that an
error occurred, (2) that the error was plain, and (3) that the
error was material or affected the defendant’s substantial rights.
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-32 (1993). Even when
these three conditions are satisfied, the court should only correct
the error if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or
public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id. at 732.
Prior to accepting a guilty plea, the trial court must
ensure the defendant understands the nature of the charges against
- 2 -
him, the mandatory minimum and maximum sentences, and other various
rights, so it is clear that the defendant is knowingly and
voluntarily entering his plea, and determine whether there is a
factual basis for the plea. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1)-(3); United
States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116, 120 (4th Cir. 1991).
Although, during the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 proceeding,
Williams expressed confusion about whether he would potentially be
sentenced as a career offender, whether he could potentially plead
to only one count, and whether the bank he robbed was FDIC insured,
the court carefully addressed each issue and Williams continually
affirmed that he was guilty, that he understood his plea agreement,
and that he wished to plead guilty. After a thorough review of the
record, we conclude that the district court complied with the
requirements of Rule 11. Therefore, the court did not err in
accepting the plea.
Williams filed a pro se supplemental brief. He argues
that he is actually innocent of the possession of a firearm in
furtherance of a crime of violence because he did not physically
possess or actively employ the firearm. He also argues that the
conviction on the firearm possession count constitutes a double
jeopardy violation because it is part of the predicate offense of
armed robbery. He further alleges that the consecutive five-year
sentence for violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c) (West 2000 & Supp.
2007) was error in light of Amendment 599. Williams also questions
- 3 -
whether the court erred in accepting his plea because he expressed
some confusion during the Rule 11 proceeding. Williams contends
that the Government breached the plea agreement by failing to move
for a reduction of his sentence under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines
Manual § 5K1.1 (2002) or Fed. R. Crim. P. 35. Finally, Williams
contends that the conviction and sentence must be reversed because
the indictment does not contain handwritten signatures of the
foreperson of the grand jury and the attorney for the Government.
We have reviewed these issues and found them to be without merit.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm Williams’ conviction and sentence. This court
requires that counsel inform Williams, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review.
If Williams 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 Williams.
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
- 4 -