United States of America v. George Andrew McNeil

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4389
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
GEORGE ANDREW MCNEIL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Bruce H. Hendricks, District
Judge. (4:14-cr-00454-BHH-1)
Submitted: March 16, 2016 Decided: April 11, 2016
Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
M.W. Cockrell, III, THE COCKRELL LAW FIRM, P.C., Chesterfield,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Alfred William Walker Bethea,
Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence South Carolina;
Robert Frank Daley, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
George Andrew McNeil pleaded guilty to conspiracy to
possess with intent to distribute and distribute cocaine and
cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2012). The
district court sentenced McNeil to 262 months of imprisonment
and he now appeals. Appellate counsel has filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
questioning whether the district court fully complied with the
requirements of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11. Finding no error, we
affirm.
Appellate counsel questions on appeal whether the district
court fully complied with Rule 11 in accepting McNeil’s guilty
plea. The purpose of the Rule 11 colloquy is to ensure that the
plea of guilty is entered into knowingly and voluntarily. See
United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 58 (2002). Accordingly,
prior to accepting a guilty plea, a trial court, through
colloquy with the defendant, must inform the defendant of, and
determine that he understands, the nature of the charges to
which the plea is offered, any mandatory minimum penalty, the
maximum possible penalty he faces, and the various rights he is
relinquishing by pleading guilty. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b). The
court also must determine whether there is a factual basis for
the plea. Id.; United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 120 (4th
Cir. 1991).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Because McNeil did not move in the district court to
withdraw his guilty plea, any error in the Rule 11 hearing is
reviewed for plain error. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d
517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). We have reviewed the record and
conclude that McNeil’s guilty plea was knowingly and voluntarily
entered. The district court fully complied with the
requirements of Rule 11 and properly ensured that McNeil was
pleading guilty voluntarily.
We have examined the entire record in accordance with the
requirements of Anders and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. This court requires that counsel inform McNeil, in
writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If McNeil 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 McNeil. 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 in the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --