Filed: Feb. 16, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4163 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MELANIE DENNIS POSTON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:09-cr-00514-TLW-1) Submitted: February 10, 2011 Decided: February 16, 2011 Before WILKINSON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opini
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4163 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MELANIE DENNIS POSTON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:09-cr-00514-TLW-1) Submitted: February 10, 2011 Decided: February 16, 2011 Before WILKINSON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinio..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4163
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MELANIE DENNIS POSTON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(4:09-cr-00514-TLW-1)
Submitted: February 10, 2011 Decided: February 16, 2011
Before WILKINSON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David B. Betts, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant.
William E. Day, II, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence,
South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Melanie Dennis Poston appeals from her conviction for
conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute prescription
substances and her resulting 125-month sentence entered pursuant
to her guilty plea. On appeal, Poston’s attorney has filed an
Anders * brief, concluding that there are no meritorious issues
for appeal but questioning whether the district court failed to
comply with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 rendering Poston’s plea
involuntary. Although informed of her right to do so, Poston
has not filed a supplemental brief. After a thorough review of
the record, we affirm.
Poston contends that the district court failed to
inform her of her right to persist in her previous plea of not
guilty and her right to have an attorney appointed to represent
her if she could not afford one, in violation of Rule 11.
However, our review of the record discloses that the court
informed Poston that she could either proceed to a jury trial or
plead guilty and that, should she choose to go to trial, she
would have the right to assistance of counsel. In addition,
Poston specifically changed her plea to guilty at her Rule 11
hearing, expressly stated that she wished to plead guilty, and
was represented by appointed counsel earlier in her proceedings.
*
Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967).
2
Thus, even if the district court’s colloquy was somehow
technically insufficient, Poston cannot show that any error
affected her substantial rights. See United States v. General,
278 F.3d 389, 393 (4th Cir. 2002) (standard of review for
unpreserved error). Accordingly, this claim of error is without
merit.
Pursuant to Anders, we have conducted an independent
review of the record in this case, and we find no meritorious
issues for appeal. As such, we affirm Poston’s conviction and
sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Poston in
writing of her right to petition the Supreme Court of the United
States for further review. If Poston requests that a petition
be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be
frivolous, then counsel may motion this court for leave to
withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that
a copy thereof was served on Poston. 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