UNITED STATES v. EDGERTON IV (2020)

James C. Edgerton, IV, pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute heroin, methamphetamine, and cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846 (2018). The district court sentenced Edgerton to 360 months’ imprisonment and Edgerton now appeals. Edgerton’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioning the adequacy of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing. We affirm.

Because Edgerton did not move to withdraw his guilty plea, we review the adequacy of the Rule 11 plea colloquy for plain error. United States v. Sanya, 774 F.3d 812, 815 (4th Cir. 2014). To demonstrate plain error, Edgerton “must demonstrate not only that the district court plainly erred, but also that this error affected his substantial rights. In the Rule 11 context, this inquiry means that [Edgerton] must demonstrate a reasonable probability that, but for the error, he would not have pleaded guilty.” Id. at 816 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Our review of the Rule 11 colloquy reveals that the district court substantially complied with the Rule 11 requirements. Because Edgerton’s plea was knowing and voluntary, we affirm his conviction.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this appeal and have found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Edgerton, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Edgerton 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 Edgerton.

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

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.