United States of America v. Ryheem Rishawn Jenkins, a/k/a Heem

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4409
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RYHEEM RISHAWN JENKINS, a/k/a Heem,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(4:13-cr-00446-RBH-6)
Submitted: March 30, 2015 Decided: April 22, 2015
Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
M.W. Cockrell, III, THE COCKRELL LAW FIRM, P.C., Chesterfield,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Alfred William Walker Bethea,
Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Ryheem Rishawn Jenkins appeals his conviction, pursuant to
a guilty plea, for conspiracy to possess with intent to
distribute and to distribute 280 grams or more of cocaine base,
500 grams or more of cocaine, and a quantity of marijuana, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846 (2012). The
district court sentenced Jenkins to a 180-month term of
imprisonment, as stipulated in the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C)
plea agreement. Jenkins’ counsel has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that he has
found no meritorious grounds for appeal but raising as a
potential issue the adequacy of the plea hearing. Although
informed of his right to do so, Jenkins has not filed a pro se
supplemental brief.
Having reviewed the transcript of the plea colloquy for
plain error, we conclude that the district court substantially
complied with the requirements of Rule 11. The court’s failure
to inform Jenkins of the potential immigration consequences of
his plea and that the agreed-upon sentence would be included in
the judgment did not affect his substantial rights. See
Henderson v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1121, 1126-27 (2013)
(providing standard); see also United States v. Davila, 133 S.
Ct. 2139, 2147 (2013) (applying standard in guilty plea
context).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record for any meritorious grounds for appeal and have found
none. Accordingly, we affirm Jenkins’ conviction. Because
Jenkins’ agreed-upon sentence was imposed pursuant to Rule
11(c)(1)(C), it is not reviewable. See 18 U.S.C. § 3742(c)(1)
(2012); United States v. Calderon, 428 F.3d 928, 932 (10th Cir.
2005). Thus, we dismiss the appeal as to the sentence and we
affirm the judgment in all other respects.
This court requires that counsel inform Jenkins, in
writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Jenkins requests that a
petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition
would be frivolous, counsel may move in this court for leave to
withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that
a copy thereof was served on Jenkins. 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 IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART

-- 3 of 3 --