United States of America v. Dion Lee Thompson

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4730
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DION LEE THOMPSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (CR-01-826)
Submitted: May 27, 2004 Decided: June 2, 2004
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Hervery B. O. Young, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Elizabeth Jean Howard, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Dion Lee Thompson appeals his guilty plea conviction for
conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute fifty grams or more
of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000).
Thompson’s attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising one issue, but stating
that he finds no meritorious grounds for appeal. Thompson did not
file a pro se supplemental brief, despite being informed of his
right to do so. The Government declined to file a brief.
In the Anders brief, counsel questions whether the
district court properly complied with the requirements of Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11 when accepting Thompson’s guilty plea. Because
Thompson failed to object or move to withdraw his guilty plea, this
court reviews his plea hearing for plain error. United States v.
Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 524-27 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 537 U.S.
899 (2002). After a close review of the plea proceedings, we
conclude that the district court thoroughly complied with the
requirements of Rule 11.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We, therefore, affirm Thompson’s conviction and sentence,
and we deny Thompson’s motion to relieve counsel and appoint
substitute counsel. This court requires that counsel inform her
client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
the United States for further review. If the client requests that
a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such 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 the client. 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 of 3 --