United States v. Dymir Rhodes ( 2018 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-4678
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DYMIR RHODES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:16-cr-00235-CCB-8)
Submitted: March 29, 2018 Decided: April 2, 2018
Before AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed in part, affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles N. Curlett, Jr., LEVIN & CURLETT LLC, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant.
Daniel Charles Gardner, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Dymir Rhodes pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to conspiracy to
distribute and possess with intent to distribute heroin, cocaine, and fentanyl, in violation of
21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846, 860 (2012). The district court sentenced Rhodes
in accordance with his stipulated plea agreement under Rule 11(c)(1)(C) of the Federal
Rules of Criminal Procedure. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning whether the district court complied with Rule
11 during Rhodes’ plea hearing and whether the court considered the appropriate
sentencing factors before sentencing Rhodes. Rhodes was informed of his right to file a
pro se supplemental brief, but he has not done so. The Government elected not to file a
brief.
Rule 11 requires that the trial court, through colloquy with the defendant, ensure
that the defendant understands the nature of the offense to which he is pleading guilty, any
mandatory minimum penalty, the maximum possible penalty, and the various rights being
relinquished, before accepting a guilty plea. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b). Rule 11 further
requires that the trial court determine that the plea is voluntary and that there is a factual
basis for the plea. Id. “[W]hen, as here, a defendant fails to move in the district court to
withdraw his or her guilty plea, any error in the Rule 11 hearing is reviewed only for plain
error.” United States v. Williams, 811 F.3d 621, 622 (4th Cir. 2016). Having reviewed the
record, we conclude that the district court fully complied with Rule 11 before accepting
Rhodes’ guilty plea. We therefore affirm Rhodes’ conviction.
2
When the parties have stipulated to a particular sentence under Rule 11(c)(1)(C) and
the district court imposes that sentence, the defendant may appeal only if the court imposed
that sentence “in violation of law” or “as a result of an incorrect application of the
sentencing guidelines.” Id. at 623-25. Because the sentence imposed by the district court
neither violated the law nor resulted from an incorrect application of the Guidelines,
Rhodes’ Rule 11(c)(1)(C) stipulation precludes this court from considering his claims
regarding his sentence. We therefore dismiss Rhodes’ appeal of his sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have
found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore dismiss Rhodes’ challenge to his
sentence and affirm the remainder of the district court’s judgment. This court requires that
counsel inform Rhodes, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United
States for further review. If Rhodes 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 Rhodes.
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.
DISMISSED IN PART,
AFFIRMED IN PART
3