United States v. Tollison , 210 F. App'x 302 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4440
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
TOM TOLLISON, a/k/a Thomas C. Tollison,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.
(6:05-cr-707)
Submitted: December 21, 2006 Decided: December 29, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David B. Betts, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Regan
Alexandra Pendleton, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tom Tollison appeals his conviction and sentence
following a guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute 50 grams or
more of methamphetamine and 500 grams or more of a mixture or
substance containing methamphetamine, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1)(2000). Tollison’s attorney on appeal has filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that
there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but raising as a
potential issue whether the district court complied with Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11 in accepting Tollison’s guilty plea. Tollison was
advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has
not done so. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
Counsel raises the issue of whether the district court
fully complied with Rule 11, but identifies no error in the Rule 11
proceeding and concludes that there was full compliance with the
Rule. After a thorough review of the record, we similarly find
that the district court complied with the requirements of Rule 11.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm Tollison’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
- 2 -
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 -