United States of America v. Veronica Thomas

16-4268Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit21 de nov. de 2016

Abrir fonte

Texto completo

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4268
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
VERONICA THOMAS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, Chief
District Judge. (3:15-cr-00020-GMG-RWT-41)
Submitted: November 17, 2016 Decided: November 21, 2016
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Roger D. Curry, CURRY AMOS & ASSOC., LC, Fairmont, West Virginia,
for Appellant. Anna Zartler Krasinski, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Veronica Thomas appeals her conviction and sentence of three
years of probation following her plea of guilty to conspiracy to
distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),
(b)(1)(C), 846 (2012). Appellate counsel has filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), concluding
that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning
whether Thomas’ plea was knowing and voluntary, and whether the
district court erred in denying Thomas’ motion to be referred to
the Northern District of West Virginia’s drug court program, a
rehabilitative program for individuals with substance abuse
problems. We affirm.
A guilty plea is valid where the defendant voluntarily,
knowingly, and intelligently pleads guilty “with sufficient
awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences.”
United States v. Fisher, 711 F.3d 460, 464 (4th Cir. 2013)
(internal quotation marks omitted). Before accepting a guilty
plea, a district court must ensure that the plea is knowing,
voluntary, and supported by an independent factual basis. Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11(b); United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116 (4th
Cir. 1991).*
* The Government has not invoked the appellate waiver
contained in Thomas’ plea agreement. Therefore, we are not limited
by the waiver provision in conducting our Anders review, and we

-- 2 of 4 --

3
Because Thomas neither raised an objection during the Rule 11
proceeding nor moved to withdraw her guilty plea in the district
court, we review her Rule 11 proceeding for plain error. United
States v. Sanya, 774 F.3d 812, 815 (4th Cir. 2014). Our review of
the record reveals that the district court fully complied with
Rule 11 in accepting Thomas’ guilty plea after a thorough hearing.
Accordingly, we conclude that her plea was knowing and voluntary,
Fisher, 711 F.3d at 464, and thus “final and binding,” United
States v. Lambey, 974 F.2d 1389, 1394 (4th Cir. 1992) (en banc).
Thomas next contends that the district court erred in denying
her motion to be referred to the drug court program. Thomas’
application had already been rejected by the drug court program,
and we conclude that the district court did not err in ruling that
it would be futile to refer her to the program only to be rejected
again, as Thomas was already receiving highly successful treatment
outside of the program for her drug addiction.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm the judgment of the district court. This court
requires that counsel inform Thomas, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review.
need not address its validity. See United States v. Poindexter,
492 F.3d 263, 271 (4th Cir. 2007).

-- 3 of 4 --

4
If Thomas 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 Thomas.
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

-- 4 of 4 --

Continue sua pesquisa no ChatGPT ou Claude

Conecte o Omnilex para pesquisar o corpus jurídico pelo seu assistente de IA.