US v. Albury Francis, No. 13-4002 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4002 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. ALBURY FRANCIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:01-cr-00094-BO-1) Submitted: September 11, 2013 Decided: September 13, 2013 Before MOTZ, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James C. White, Michelle M. Walker, LAW OFFICES OF JAMES C. WHITE, P.C., Chapel Hill, North Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Albury Francis pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to possession with the intent to distribute more than fifty grams of ยง 841(a)(1) cocaine (2006), imprisonment. base, and in was violation sentenced of to 21 120 U.S.C. months On appeal, Francis asserts that his plea was not knowing and voluntary because the district court failed to fully comply with Federal of Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 during his plea colloquy. We find Francis arguments unavailing. Because Francis did not move in the district court to withdraw his guilty plea, we review the Rule 11 proceeding for plain error. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 524-26 (4th Cir. 2002). Plain error may be found only when an error occurs, is plain, and affects a defendant s substantial rights. United 2009). States v. Massenburg, 564 F.3d 337, 342-43 (4th Cir. Our review of the guilty plea hearing transcript leads us to conclude that the district court substantially complied with the mandate of Rule 11 in accepting Francis guilty plea and that the district court s omissions did not affect Francis substantial rights. U.S. 74, 83 noncompliance defendant United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 (2004) with bears (holding Rule burden of 11 that, affected showing a to establish substantial reasonable that rights, probability that, but for the error, he would not have entered the plea. ). 2 Further, most of the omissions Francis complains of were set forth in Francis plea agreement. 949 F.3d 114, 117 (4th Cir. Cf. United States v. DeFusco, 1991) (finding district court s failure to provide requisite Rule 11 information harmless error where defendant learned information from another source before plea). Accordingly, dispense with contentions are oral we affirm argument adequately the judgment because presented in the the below. facts We and legal materials before this court and argument would not aid in the 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.
