The opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4970
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MICHAEL GERARD BROWN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District
Judge. (CR-02-123)
Submitted: September 15, 2004 Decided: November 2, 2004
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James A. Brown, Jr., LAW OFFICES OF JIM BROWN, P.A., Beaufort,
South Carolina, for Appellant. James Strom Thurmond, Jr., United
States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, Miller Williams Shealy,
Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Michael Gerard Brown pled guilty before a magistrate
judge to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute fifty
grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846
(2000). The district court sentenced Brown to 168 months, followed
by five years of supervised release. Brown appeals his conviction.
Counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising one issue but stating
that, in his view, there are no meritorious grounds for appeal.
Brown was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief
and has failed to do so. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
Counsel questions whether the magistrate judge properly
conducted the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 colloquy. Our review of the
record leads us to conclude that there is no plain error in the
plea proceeding. See United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 524-
25 (4th Cir. 2002) (discussing standard of review). The magistrate
judge fully complied with the mandate of Rule 11 in accepting
Brown’s guilty plea, and without a request from Brown for review of
the Rule 11 hearing, the district court did not err by failing to
conduct a de novo review of that hearing. See United States v.
Osborne, 345 F.3d 281, 288 (4th Cir. 2003) (holding that taking a
guilty plea is permissible as “additional duty” for magistrate
judge and that de novo review by district court is not required
unless parties so demand).
- 2 -
As required by Anders, we have examined the entire record
and find no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm
Brown’s conviction and sentence. This court requires 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
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 -