US v. Kirk Grantham

Filing 920090918

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-5067

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KIRK LEON GRANTHAM, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey, Chief District Judge. (3:08-cr-00015-JPB-DJJ-1)

Submitted:

August 21, 2009

Decided:

September 18, 2009

Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brendan S. Leary, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellant. Sharon L. Potter, United States Attorney, Erin K. Reisenweber, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Kirk Leon Grantham pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to distribution of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), Grantham counsel 386 to has (b)(1)(B) 188 (2006). The district On to court appeal, v. the

sentenced Grantham's

months' a

imprisonment. pursuant

filed 738

brief

Anders

California,

U.S.

(1967),

questioning

whether

district court erred in accepting Grantham's plea of guilty, but concluding that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal. Grantham did not file a pro se supplemental brief. Prior to accepting a guilty plea, a We affirm. trial court,

through colloquy with the defendant, must inform the defendant of, and determine that he understands, the nature of the charges to which the plea is offered, any mandatory minimum penalty, the maximum possible penalty he faces, and the various rights he is relinquishing by pleading guilty. United States v. DeFusco, 949 The

F.2d 114, 116 (4th Cir. 1991); Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1-2).

court also must determine whether there is a factual basis for the plea. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(3); DeFusco, 949 F.2d at 120.

Because Grantham did not move in the district court to withdraw his guilty plea, any error in the Rule 11 hearing is reviewed for plain error. (4th Cir. 2002). United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525

2

Here, the magistrate judge requirements ensured fully that of Rule 11. was the

fully complied with the the plead magistrate guilty judge was 33).

Furthermore, competent services court and to of did

Grantham with

and (JA

satisfied we

counsel. not err in

Therefore, Grantham's

find of

that

the

accepting plea was

plea

guilty,

Grantham's

guilty

knowing and voluntary. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. court. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district We require 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 a petition be

filed, but counsel believes that such filing 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

Grantham executed a waiver consenting to plead before a magistrate judge. See United States v. Ketchum, 550 F.3d 363, 367, n.3 (4th Cir. 2008) ("The magistrate judge's participation in the plea proceeding accords with our precedent.").

3

before

the

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process. AFFIRMED

4