US v. Nakia Oliphant, No. 10-4862 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4862 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. NAKIA OLIPHANT, a/k/a Mont, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (3:06-cr-00061-JFA-17) Submitted: December 21, 2010 Decided: January 3, 2011 Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David B. Betts, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Jimmie Ewing, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Nakia Oliphant pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine and more than fifty grams of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. ยง 846 (2006). district court sentenced minimum sentence. Oliphant to a 240-month The mandatory 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 asking the court to review the district court s compliance with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 s requirements. pro se Oliphant was informed of his right to file a supplemental brief, but he did not do so. For the district court to reasons that follow, we affirm. Oliphant did not withdraw his guilty plea. move in the Thus our review is limited to plain error. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). To prevail, Oliphant must show: (1) an error was made; (2) the error is plain; and (3) the error affects substantial rights. United States v. Massenburg, 564 F.3d 337, 342-43 (4th Cir. 2009). Counsel notes that the district court did not expressly advise Oliphant of his right to persist in his plea of not guilty. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1)(B). Nevertheless, the court advised Oliphant he had the right to plead not guilty, he received significant concessions for his guilty plea, and he 2 does not argue that he would have invoked his right to a trial had the district court so advised him. Additionally, Oliphant claims that the district court erred by failing to question him after he represented sentence by someone. stated that sentence. he that he had been guaranteed a See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(2). understood Moreover the the court district would court specific Oliphant determine correctly his advised Oliphant of the maximum and minimum sentences, and he received the mandatory minimum sentence. Accordingly, Oliphant failed to show any impairment to his substantial rights. has United States v. Goins, 51 F.3d 400, 402-03 (4th Cir. 1995). We have examined the entire record in accordance with the requirements of Anders and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Oliphant, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Oliphant 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 Oliphant. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 3 materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
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.
