United States v. Gartman , 160 F. App'x 296 ( 2005 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4198
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JIMMY RAY GARTMAN, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief
District Judge. (CR-03-903)
Submitted: November 23, 2005 Decided: December 27, 2005
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Allen B. Burnside, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Jonathan S. Gasser, Acting United
States Attorney, Elizabeth Jean Howard, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Jimmy Ray Gartman, Jr., pled guilty to possession of a
firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)
(2000). The district court sentenced him to seventy-one months in
prison. Gartman timely appealed. Gartman’s counsel 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 but questioning whether the district court’s failure to
inform Gartman at his guilty plea hearing he had the right to plead
not guilty rendered his guilty plea invalid. Gartman was informed
of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not
filed one. We affirm Gartman’s conviction and sentence.
Because Gartman did not move in the district court to
withdraw his guilty plea, 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) (holding that “plain
error analysis is the proper standard for review of forfeited error
in the Rule 11 context”). Rule 11(b)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of
Criminal Procedure requires the district court, before accepting a
guilty plea, to inform the defendant that he has the right to plead
not guilty. Gartman initially pled not guilty, but pursuant to a
plea agreement, changed his plea to guilty. He indicated at the
Rule 11 hearing that he was not coerced into pleading guilty and
that he was pleading guilty because he was in fact guilty.
Although the district court failed to inform Gartman at the plea
hearing of his right to plead not guilty, the district court
- 2 -
substantially complied with the requirements of Rule 11. We find
that, under the facts of this case, the district court’s omission
did not affect Gartman’s substantial rights and therefore did not
amount to plain error. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-
32 (1993) (stating plain error standard).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm Gartman’s conviction and sentence.
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
- 3 -