US v. Willie Louis Smith

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:13-cr-01017-JFA-5 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999791380].. [15-4365]

Download PDF
Appeal: 15-4365 Doc: 31 Filed: 04/08/2016 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-4365 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WILLIE LOUIS ROSEDERIE SMITH, a/k/a WL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:13-cr-01017-JFA-5) Submitted: February 25, 2016 Decided: April 8, 2016 Before MOTZ, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mario A. Pacella, STROM LAW FIRM, L.L.C., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Nancy Chastain Wicker, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 15-4365 Doc: 31 Filed: 04/08/2016 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: Willie Louis Rosederie Smith pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to conspiracy to possess and distribute 500 grams of cocaine, 28 grams of crack, and 50-100 kilograms of marijuana. On appeal, California, counsel 386 filed U.S. 738 a brief (1967), pursuant asserting to Anders there are v. no meritorious grounds for appeal, but asking whether the district court erred by denying Smith’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. We affirm. We find no abuse of discretion by the district court in denying Smith’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. See United States v. Ubakanma, 215 F.3d 421, 424 (4th Cir. 2000) (providing review standard). The district court held a hearing and properly analyzed Smith’s motion under United States v. Moore, 931 F.2d 245, 248 (4th Cir. 1991). We find no reversible error in this regard. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. This review includes the issues raised in Smith’s pro se supplemental brief. We therefore affirm Smith’s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Smith, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Smith requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then 2 Appeal: 15-4365 counsel Doc: 31 may Filed: 04/08/2016 move representation. in this Pg: 3 of 3 court for leave to withdraw from Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Smith. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?