US v. Fredrick Hughes, No. 08-4459 (4th Cir. 2008)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4459 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. FREDRICK EUGENE HUGHES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:07-cr-00359-RBH-1) Submitted: December 3, 2008 Before NIEMEYER and Senior Circuit Judge. TRAXLER, Decided: Circuit December 16, 2008 Judges, and HAMILTON, Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John M. Ervin, III, ERVIN LAW OFFICE, Darlington, South Carolina, for Appellant. Rose Mary Sheppard Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Pursuant to a plea agreement, Frederick Eugene Hughes pled guilty during and violence, to two counts relation in to violation of and of using in 18 and carrying furtherance U.S.C. of, a a firearm, crime ยง 924(c)(1)(A) of (2006). Hughes was sentenced to the statutorily required minimum term of seven years imprisonment on the first count and received the statutorily required consecutive minimum years imprisonment on the second count. term of twenty-five He now appeals. His attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether the district court complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting Hughes guilty plea. Hughes was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not done so. Because Hughes did not move in the district court to withdraw his guilty plea, his challenge to the adequacy of the Rule 11 hearing is reviewed for plain error. See United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). Our review of the transcript of the plea hearing leads us to conclude that the district court substantially complied with the mandates of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting Hughes guilty plea and that the court s omissions Critically, the did not transcript affect Hughes reveals 2 that substantial the district rights. court ensured the plea was supported by an independent factual basis and that Hughes entered the plea knowingly and voluntarily with an understanding of the consequences. See United States DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116, 119-20 (4th Cir. 1991). v. Further, Hughes does not suggest that he would have declined to plead guilty had exacting. the district court s Rule 11 colloquy been more Accordingly, we discern no plain error. We have examined the entire record in this case in accordance meritorious district with the issues court s requirements for appeal. judgment. of and Anders, Accordingly, This court we we requires find no affirm the counsel to 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, counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel s motion must state that a copy of the motion was served on the client. legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
