United States v. Lockhart

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-4031
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
STANLEY LOCKHART,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees,
District Judge. (CR-99-63-V)
Submitted: August 15, 2000 Decided: October 22, 2001
Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randolph M. Lee, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Mark T.
Calloway, United States Attorney, D. Scott Broyles, Assistant
United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Stanley Lockhart pled guilty to one count of possession with
intent to distribute a quantity of cocaine base in violation of 21
U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1) (West 1999). On appeal, Lockhart contends
that the district court erred by accepting his guilty plea in light
of evidence that he was incompetent to plead guilty. Finding no
reversible error, we affirm.* The record offers no evidence that
Lockhart was incompetent; his failure to provide assistance to
authorities in anticipation of a sentence reduction is not, in
itself, evidence of competence. The district court complied with
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 in conducting the plea collo-
quy, and was not under any obligation to make further inquiries as
to Lockhart’s competence to plead guilty.
Accordingly, we affirm the conviction and sentence. We dis-
pense 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
*
We have considered the affect of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530
U.S. 466 (2000), and find that, because Lockhart received a
sentence of imprisonment and term of supervised release that did
not exceed the statutory maximums set out in 21 U.S.C.A.
§ 841(b)(1)(C) (West 1999), no plain error occurred. See United
States v. Promise, 255 F.3d 150 (4th Cir. 2001) (en banc); United
States v. Angle, 254 F.3d 514 (4th Cir. 2001) (en banc).
2