United States v. Miller , 259 F. App'x 604 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4042
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
TYRONE MILLER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(4:05-cr-00470-TLW)
Submitted: November 26, 2007 Decided: December 28, 2007
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Henry M. Anderson, Jr., ANDERSON LAW FIRM, PA, Florence, South
Carolina, for Appellant. Jonathan Scott Gasser, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Tyrone Miller pled guilty to conspiracy to possess more
than fifty grams of cocaine base (crack) and more than 500 grams of
cocaine with intent to distribute, 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000), and was
sentenced to a term of 170 months imprisonment. Miller’s attorney
has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738(1967), challenging the adequacy of the guilty plea under Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11, but stating that, in his view, there are no
meritorious issues for appeal. Miller has been informed of his
right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not filed a
brief. We affirm.
Although counsel questions whether the district court
fully complied with Rule 11 in accepting Miller’s plea, after a
thorough review of the record, we conclude that the court followed
all the requirements of Rule 11 to ensure that Miller’s guilty plea
was knowing and voluntary.
Pursuant to Anders, we have examined the entire record
and find no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm
the district court’s judgment. 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 such 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
- 2 -
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 -