United States v. Marvin White , 707 F. App'x 133 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-4243
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARVIN JOSHUA WHITE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:15-cr-00715-RBH-1)
Submitted: December 19, 2017 Decided: December 21, 2017
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bradley M. Kirkland, BRADLEY M. KIRKLAND, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellant. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Florence, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Marvin Joshua White seeks to appeal his 180-month sentence, imposed pursuant
to a Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement, for possession with intent to distribute
crack cocaine. White’s counsel 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 imposed an unreasonable sentence. White filed a pro se brief
contending that the district court improperly denied his motion to suppress, and that he is
entitled to a sentence reduction pursuant to Amendment 794 to the U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines. We dismiss in part and affirm in part.
We generally review a defendant’s sentence “under a deferential abuse-of-
discretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). “However, not all
sentences are subject to appellate review.” United States v. Williams, 811 F.3d 621, 622-
23 (4th Cir. 2016). In this case, we lack jurisdiction to review White’s sentence of
imprisonment because the district court sentenced White in accordance with the terms of
his Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement, the sentence is not unlawful, and the sentence is not
based on the Sentencing Guidelines. See id. at 623-25. We therefore dismiss White’s
appeal of his sentence.
We have considered the arguments asserted in White’s pro se supplemental brief
and conclude they are without merit. In accordance with Anders, within the constraints
set forth in Williams, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no
meritorious issues for review. We therefore affirm White’s conviction. This court
requires that counsel inform White, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court
2
of the United States for further review. If White 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 White.
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 the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
3