US v. Luke Pugh

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:10-cr-00025-JPB-JSK-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998745832].. [11-4686]

Appeal: 11-4686

Document: 24

Date Filed: 12/16/2011

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-4686

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LUKE W. PUGH,
Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Elkins.
John Preston Bailey,
Chief District Judge. (2:10-cr-00025-JPB-JSK-1)

Submitted:

December 9, 2011

Before AGEE and
Circuit Judge.

WYNN,

Circuit

Decided:

Judges,

and

December 16, 2011

HAMILTON,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

L. Richard Walker, Senior Litigator, Clarksburg, West Virginia,
for Appellant.
Stephen Donald Warner, Assistant United States
Attorney, Elkins, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-4686

Document: 24

Date Filed: 12/16/2011

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Luke W. Pugh pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea
agreement,

to

one

count

of

making

false

statements,

representations, and certifications in documents required to be
maintained
violation

by
of

the
30

Mine

U.S.C.

calculated

Pugh’s

Guidelines

Manual

Safety

and

§ 820(f)

Guidelines
(2010)

at

Health

(2006).

range

under

fifteen

Administration,
The
the

to

district
U.S.

in

court

Sentencing

twenty-one

months’

imprisonment, imposed a downward variance, and sentenced Pugh to
imprisonment for one year and one day.

On appeal, counsel has

filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal,
but

questioning

whether

the

district

accepting Pugh’s guilty plea.

court

plainly

erred

in

Pugh was advised of his right to

file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not done so.
Government declined to file a brief.

The

We affirm.

Because Pugh did not move in the district court to
withdraw his guilty plea, the adequacy of the Fed. R. Crim. P.
11

hearing

is

reviewed

for

plain

error.

United

Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 524-26 (4th Cir. 2002).

States

v.

Our review of

the transcript of the guilty plea hearing leads us to conclude
that

the

magistrate

judge

substantially

complied

with

the

mandates of Rule 11 in accepting Pugh’s guilty plea and that the
court’s

omissions

did

not

affect
2

Pugh’s

substantial

rights.

Appeal: 11-4686

Document: 24

Critically,

the

Date Filed: 12/16/2011

transcript

reveals

Page: 3 of 3

that

the

magistrate

judge

ensured the plea was supported by an independent factual basis
and Pugh

entered

the

plea

knowingly

understanding of the consequences.

and

plain

error

in

the

district

with

an

United States v. DeFusco,

949 F.2d 114, 116, 120 (4th Cir. 1991).
no

voluntarily

Accordingly, we discern

court’s

acceptance

of

Pugh’s

guilty plea.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
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 Pugh, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review.

If Pugh requests that a petition be filed, but

counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
counsel

may

move

representation.

in

this

court

for

leave

to

withdraw

from

Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof

was served on Pugh.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal
before

contentions
the

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.

AFFIRMED

3