US v. Luke Pugh, No. 11-4686 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-4686 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LUKE W. PUGH, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. John Preston Bailey, Chief District Judge. (2:10-cr-00025-JPB-JSK-1) Submitted: December 9, 2011 Before AGEE and Circuit Judge. WYNN, Circuit Decided: Judges, and December 16, 2011 HAMILTON, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. L. Richard Walker, Senior Litigator, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. Stephen Donald Warner, Assistant United States Attorney, Elkins, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Luke W. Pugh pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to one count of making false statements, representations, and certifications in documents required to be maintained violation by of the 30 Mine U.S.C. calculated Pugh s Guidelines Manual Safety and ยง 820(f) Guidelines (2010) at Health (2006). range under fifteen Administration, The the to district U.S. in court Sentencing twenty-one months imprisonment, imposed a downward variance, and sentenced Pugh to imprisonment for one year and one day. On appeal, counsel 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 accepting Pugh s guilty plea. court plainly erred in Pugh was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not done so. Government declined to file a brief. The We affirm. Because Pugh did not move in the district court to withdraw his guilty plea, the adequacy of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing is reviewed for plain error. United Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 524-26 (4th Cir. 2002). States v. Our review of the transcript of the guilty plea hearing leads us to conclude that the magistrate judge substantially complied with the mandates of Rule 11 in accepting Pugh s guilty plea and that the court s omissions did not affect 2 Pugh s substantial rights. Critically, the transcript reveals that the magistrate judge ensured the plea was supported by an independent factual basis and Pugh entered the plea knowingly understanding of the consequences. and plain error in the district with an United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116, 120 (4th Cir. 1991). no voluntarily Accordingly, we discern court s acceptance of Pugh s guilty plea. 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 district court s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Pugh, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Pugh requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move representation. in this court for leave to withdraw from Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Pugh. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before 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.
