United States v. Walker , 159 F. App'x 504 ( 2005 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4399
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MARVIN FITZGERALD WALKER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief
District Judge. (CR-02-684)
Submitted: November 22, 2005 Decided: December 20, 2005
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Allen B. Burnside, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Leesa Washington, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Marvin F. Walker appeals his conviction and sentence for
one count of robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) (2000),
and one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e) (2000). Walker’s
attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), stating that, in his opinion, there are no
meritorious issues for appeal. Although concluding that such
allegations lack merit, counsel asserts that the district court
erred in failing to inform Walker of his right to plead not guilty
in compliance with the requirements of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11. Walker
filed a pro se supplemental brief alleging that his plea was not
valid because he was mentally incompetent and his sentence was
improperly enhanced based on a criminal history that was not
alleged in the indictment or proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
Because these claims are raised for the first time on
appeal, they are subject to review for plain error only. See
United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 54 (4th Cir. 2005). As set
forth in United States v. Olano, the plain error mandate is
satisfied if: (1) there was error; (2) it was plain; and (3) it
affected the defendant’s substantial rights. 507 U.S. 725, 732
(1993). If these conditions are met, we may then exercise our
discretion to notice the error, but only if it “seriously affects
- 2 -
the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial
proceedings.” Id. (internal quotation marks and alterations
omitted). We find no evidence that Walker’s substantial rights
were violated.
First, Walker had knowledge of his right to plead not
guilty from his earlier plea. He further affirmed that his
attorney had explained all of his rights to him and expressed
satisfaction with counsel’s representation.
Next, we find no evidence that Walker was incompetent to
plead guilty. He had received medical treatment and the hospital
reported that he was competent. Further, Walker’s counsel
stipulated without reservation that Walker was competent to plead
and even had him evaluated independently prior to the plea
proceeding. Finally, the court discussed Walker’s mental status
with Walker at length and concluded without reservation that Walker
was competent to plead guilty.
Further, we note that to demonstrate that his substantial
rights were affected, Walker must show that he would not have pled
guilty had he received more information. See United States v.
Goins, 51 F.3d 433, 402 (4th Cir. 1999). Walker fails to do so,
particularly considering that he was facing a statutory minimum of
180 months’ imprisonment and a maximum sentence of life in prison
and through his plea agreement received the minimum sentence.
- 3 -
Finally, pursuant to United States v. Almendarez- Torres,
523 U.S. 224 (1998), (finding that a defendant’s sentence may still
be enhanced based upon a prior conviction even if the prior
conviction is not found by a jury or admitted by the defendant), we
find no merit in Walker’s claims that his sentence was improperly
enhanced based on his criminal history. We therefore conclude that
there is no evidence Walker would not have plead guilty but for the
alleged errors.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm Walker’s conviction and sentence. We
deny Walker’s motion to have counsel relieved. This court requires
that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review.
If the client 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 the
client.
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 -