United States of America v. Trevor Antwon Johnson

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4620
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
TREVOR ANTWON JOHNSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(4:04-cr-00582-TLW)
Submitted: August 3, 2007 Decided: August 20, 2007
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John M. Ervin, III, Darlington, South Carolina, for Appellant.
Jonathan Scott Gasser, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia,
South Carolina; Rose Mary Parham, Assistant United States Attorney,
Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Pursuant to two separate plea agreements, Trevor Antwon
Johnson pled guilty to two counts of carjacking, in violation of 18
U.S.C. §§ 2119(1), 2 (2000). The district court sentenced Johnson
to 312 months in prison. Johnson timely appealed. Johnson’s
counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the adequacy of the Fed. R. Crim. P.
11 hearings. Johnson filed a pro se supplemental brief raising
issues pertaining to events antecedent to his guilty pleas.
Counsel raises as a potential issue the adequacy of the
plea hearings, but does not specify any deficiencies in the
district court’s Rule 11 inquiries. Because Johnson did not move
in the district court to withdraw his guilty pleas, any error in
the Rule 11 hearings is reviewed for plain error. United States v.
Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002) (discussing standard).
Our careful review of the record convinces us that the district
court substantially complied with the mandates of Rule 11 in
accepting Johnson’s guilty pleas and ensured that Johnson entered
his pleas knowingly and voluntarily and that the pleas were
supported by an independent factual basis. See United States v.
DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116, 119-20 (4th Cir. 1991).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record for any meritorious issues and have found none. We have
considered the arguments raised in Johnson’s pro se supplemental
brief and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we affirm
Johnson’s convictions and sentence. This court requires that

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the
client 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 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 --