The opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4291
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOHN CALVIN BROWN, III,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (1:08-cr-00388-JAB-1)
Submitted: April 21, 2011 Decided: May 4, 2011
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jenifer Wicks, LAW OFFICES OF JENIFER WICKS, Washington, D.C.,
for Appellant. John W. Stone, Jr., United States Attorney,
Robert M. Hamilton, Assistant United States Attorney,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
John Calvin Brown, III, pled guilty to possession with
intent to distribute seventy-nine grams of crack cocaine, 21
U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2006), and possession of a firearm in
furtherance of a drug trafficking offense, 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c)(1)(A) (2006). He appeals, claiming, first, that his
guilty plea was invalid because the district court failed to
adequately review the elements of the offense and that the
factual basis was insufficient to support the § 924(c)
conviction. Second, Brown asserts that the Government engaged
in prosecutorial misconduct. Finding no error, we affirm.
We have reviewed the record, including the transcript
of Brown’s Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing, and find that there were
no errors with respect to the Rule 11 plea colloquy that
affected Brown’s substantial rights. See United States v.
Hairston, 522 F.3d 336, 341 (4th Cir. 2008). During the plea
hearing, the district court informed Brown of the nature of the
charges, the maximum penalties he faced, and all of the rights
he was giving up by pleading guilty, and found that Brown was
competent and entering his plea voluntarily. The record
discloses that Brown was adequately advised of the elements of
each of the offenses that the Government would have to prove if
he were to go to trial. We also find the evidence presented in
the factual basis to be sufficient to support Brown’s conviction
2
under § 924(c)(1)(A). See United States v. Perry, 560 F.3d 246,
254 (4th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 177 (2009).
Second, Brown claims that the Government engaged in
prosecutorial misconduct because the prosecuting attorney was
not licensed. We find that Brown has failed to establish a
violation of his constitutional right to due process of law or
prejudice warranting reversal of the district court’s judgment
arising from the fact that the Government’s attorney had had his
license to practice law suspended.
Accordingly, we affirm Brown’s conviction. 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