United States of America v. James C. Edgerton, Iv

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-4863

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JAMES C. EDGERTON, IV,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:18-cr-00798-JFA-1)

Submitted: May 21, 2020 Decided: May 26, 2020

Before AGEE and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David B. Betts, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Robert Nicholas Bianchi,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

PER CURIAM:

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 (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

3

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