United States v. Crawford

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4721
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CHARLAYNE A. CRAWFORD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (CR-05-244)
Submitted: February 16, 2006 Decided: February 21, 2006
Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James B. Loggins, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Maxwell Barnes Cauthen, III, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Charlayne A. Crawford appeals her conviction and sentence
for seven counts of impersonating an officer or employee of the
United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 912 (2000) and 18 U.S.C.
§ 3147 (2000). Crawford’s attorney 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. Although
concluding that such allegations lacked merit, counsel raises two
claims on appeal: (1) whether the court complied with Rule 11 in
accepting Crawford’s plea; and (2) whether the court erred in
revoking Crawford’s bond. Crawford was notified of her right to
file a supplemental pro se brief and filed an affidavit. Finding
no reversible error, we affirm.
In the Anders brief, Counsel asserts that the district
court did not comply with Rule 11. We find no evidence that the
court did not comply with the requirements in Rule 11. Crawford
acknowledged that she knew and understood all of her rights prior
to pleading guilty. She further indicated that she was pleading
voluntarily and was satisfied with counsel.
Counsel also questions whether the district court erred
in revoking Crawford’s bond. We find no evidence of error with
this decision. Crawford’s bond included certain conditions with
which she failed to comply.
- 2 -
Finally, Crawford filed an affidavit in which she
reargues the merits of her initial conviction, appears to allege
civil rights violations, and indicates her belief that her guilty
plea was coerced. We find no evidence that Crawford’s plea was not
given knowingly and voluntarily. Her other claims are without
merit.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm Crawford’s conviction and sentence.
This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of
her 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 -