Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Unpublished United States Court of Appeals For The Fourth Circuit
Unpublished United States Court of Appeals For The Fourth Circuit
No. 96-4683
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Dexter William Walton appeals from his conviction and sentence
for conspiracy to attempt to possess with intent to distribute cocaine
base in violation of 21 U.S.C. 846 (1994), and for attempting to
possess with intent to distribute cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C.
841(a)(l) (1994). Walton's attorney has filed a brief in accordance
with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), addressing whether
the district court complied with the requirements of Fed. R. Crim. P.
11 in accepting Walton's guilty plea and whether the court properly
imposed Walton's sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines. Counsel
asserts that there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Walton was
notified of his right to file an additional brief, but has not done so. We
affirm.
Walton contends that the district court improperly conducted the
Rule 11 hearing in accepting his guilty plea. In reviewing the adequacy of compliance with Rule 11, this court accords great deference
to the trial court's decision as to how best to conduct the mandated
colloquy with the defendant. United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114,
116 (4th Cir. 1991). Rule 11 violations are evaluated under the harmless error standard. Id. at 117. This court may vacate a conviction
resulting from a guilty plea only if the trial court's violations of Rule
11 affected the defendant's substantial rights. Id.
Our review of the record discloses that the district court sufficiently
complied with Rule 11 in informing Appellant of his rights and in
ascertaining the voluntariness of his plea. We find that because
Appellant's substantial rights were not in any way compromised, any
alleged error during the Rule 11 colloquy was harmless.
Walton also maintains that the district court inaccurately computed
his sentence based on the Sentencing Guidelines. However, Walton's
failure to object during sentencing amounts to a waiver of his right
to raise that issue on appeal absent plain error. United States v. Ford,
88 F.3d 1350, 1355-56 (4th Cir.), cert. denied , ___ U.S. ___, 65
U.S.L.W. 3369 (U.S. Nov. 18, 1996) (No. 96-6379). We find no plain
error in the record warranting review of Walton's sentence.
2