US v. Cornelius McDonald

Filing 920090903

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-5063

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CORNELIUS MCDONALD, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:05-cr-01217-MJP-1)

Submitted:

August 20, 2009

Decided:

September 3, 2009

Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Langdon D. Long, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Robert Claude Jendron, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Cornelius firearm by a McDonald pled guilty in to possession of 18 of a

convicted

felon,

violation

U.S.C.

§§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2), (e) (2006), and was sentenced to 180 months in prison. McDonald timely appealed.

Counsel for McDonald filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioning whether McDonald was competent to enter his guilty plea. McDonald was

informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not done so. Finding no error, we affirm.

In the absence of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea in the district court, we review for plain error the adequacy of the guilty plea proceeding under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11. States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). United Our

examination of the record shows that the district court fully complied with the requirements of Rule 11. McDonald's plea was

knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered, and supported by a factual basis. We therefore find no error.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court's judgment. This court

requires that counsel inform McDonald, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further 2

review.

If

McDonald

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 McDonald. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the materials decisional

would

process.

AFFIRMED

3