United States v. McGee-Ard , 283 F. App'x 995 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4072
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KENNY WAYNE MCGEE-ARD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(4:06-cr-01042-RBH-2)
Submitted: July 22, 2008 Decided: July 24, 2008
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John M. Ervin, III, ERVIN LAW OFFICE, Darlington, South Carolina,
for Appellant. William E. Day, II, Assistant United States
Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kenny Wayne McGee-Ard pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea
agreement, to one count of manufacturing counterfeit Federal
Reserve Notes, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 471, 2 (2000). The
district court sentenced him to twenty-four months of imprisonment.
McGee-Ard timely appealed.
On appeal, counsel filed an Anders* brief, in which he
states there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questions
whether the district court complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in
accepting McGee-Ard’s guilty plea. McGee-Ard was advised of his
right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not filed a
brief. The Government declined to file a brief. We affirm.
McGee-Ard did not move in the district court to withdraw
his guilty plea; therefore this court reviews his challenge to the
adequacy of the Rule 11 hearing for plain error. United States v.
Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). Prior to accepting a
guilty plea, the trial court must ensure the defendant understands
the nature of the charges against 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. The
court must also 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). Our review of the plea
*
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
- 2 -
hearing transcript reveals that the court conducted a thorough Rule
11 colloquy that assured McGee-Ard’s plea was made both knowingly
and voluntarily.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm McGee-Ard’s conviction and sentence. This court
requires that counsel inform McGee-Ard, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review.
If McGee-Ard 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
McGee-Ard.
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 -