United States of America v. Travis McArthur Aldridge

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-5074
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TRAVIS MCARTHUR ALDRIDGE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey,
Chief District Judge. (3:08-cr-00036-JPB-DJJ-1)
Submitted: July 14, 2009 Decided: July 28, 2009
Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Brendan S. Leary, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Wheeling,
West Virginia, for Appellant. Sharon L. Potter, United States
Attorney, Paul T. Camilletti, Assistant United States Attorney,
Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 4 --

PER CURIAM:
Travis McArthur Aldridge1 pleaded guilty to
distribution of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)
(2006). The district court sentenced Aldridge to 135 months of
imprisonment. His attorney has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising one issue but
stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal.
Aldridge filed a pro se supplemental brief raising additional
issues.2 We affirm.
In the Anders brief, counsel questions whether the
district court erred in accepting Aldridge’s guilty plea. Prior
to accepting a guilty plea, a trial court, through colloquy with
the defendant, must inform the defendant of, and determine that
he understands, the nature of the charges to which the plea is
offered, any mandatory minimum penalty, the maximum possible
penalty he faces, and the various rights he is relinquishing by
pleading guilty. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b). The court also must
determine whether there is a factual basis for the plea. Id.;
United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 120 (4th Cir. 1991).
The purpose of the Rule 11 colloquy is to ensure that the plea
1 The Appellant’s true name is Jerron Lamont Cephas.
2 We have considered the claims raised in Aldridge’s pro se
brief and conclude the claims lack merit.
2

-- 2 of 4 --

of guilt is entered into knowingly and voluntarily. See United
States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 58 (2002).
Because Aldridge did not move in the district court to
withdraw his guilty plea, any error in the Rule 11 hearing is
reviewed for plain error. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d
517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). “To establish plain error, [Aldridge]
must show that an error occurred, that the error was plain, and
that the error affected his substantial rights.” United
States v. Muhammad, 478 F.3d 247, 249 (4th Cir. 2007). Even if
Aldridge satisfies these requirements, “correction of the error
remains within our discretion, which we should not exercise
. . . unless the error seriously affect[s] the fairness,
integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id.
Our review of the transcript reveals full compliance with the
requirements of Rule 11, and we conclude that Aldridge pleaded
guilty knowingly and voluntarily.
We have examined the entire record in accordance with
the requirements of Anders and have found no meritorious issues
for appeal. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district
court. This court requires that counsel inform Aldridge, in
writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Aldridge requests that a
petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition
would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for
3

-- 3 of 4 --

4
leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must
state that a copy thereof was served on Aldridge. 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

-- 4 of 4 --