United States v. Williams ( 2009 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4013
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DONTE WILLIAMS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
(1:06-cr-00095-RDB-1)
Submitted: November 20, 2009 Decided: December 31, 2009
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Stuart O. Simms, BROWN, GOLDSTEIN & LEVY, LLP, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellant. James Thomas Wallner, Assistant United
States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Pursuant to a written plea agreement, Donte Williams
pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute fifty grams
or more of crack cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2006). The
plea agreement stipulated in accordance with Fed. R. Crim. P.
11(c)(1)(C) that Williams would receive a sentence of 168-262
months. At Williams’ Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 proceeding, that term
was narrowed to 168-180 months with the consent of the parties.
The stipulated sentencing range was binding upon the district
court upon acceptance of the plea agreement. See Fed. R. Crim.
P. 11(c)(1)(C).
The district court sentenced Williams to 168 months in
prison. Williams now appeals. His attorney has filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel
contends that the sentence should be set aside because the
district court did not state whether it would depart below the
stipulated range. Williams was notified of his right to file a
pro se supplemental brief but has not filed such a brief. We
affirm in part and dismiss in part.
We conclude that we do not have jurisdiction to
address the claimed sentencing error. The statute governing
appellate review of a sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 3742(c) (2006),
limits the circumstances under which a defendant may appeal a
sentence to which he stipulated in a plea agreement to claims
2
that “his sentence was imposed in violation of law [or] was
imposed as a result of an incorrect application of the
sentencing guidelines.” United States v. Sanchez, 146 F.3d 796,
797 & n.1 (10th Cir. 1998); United States v. Littlefield, 105
F.3d 527, 527-28 (9th Cir. 1997).
Williams’ sentence was not imposed in violation of
law. He was statutorily subject to a term of ten years to life
in prison. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) (2006), and his 168-
month sentence falls within this range. Nor is the sentence a
result of an incorrect application of the sentencing guidelines.
A sentence imposed pursuant to a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement
is contractual and not based upon the guidelines. United
States v. Cieslowski, 410 F.3d 353, 364 (7th Cir. 2005) (stating
that “[a] sentence imposed under a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea arises
directly from the agreement itself, not from the Guidelines”);
Littlefield, 105 F.3d at 528. Application of § 3742(c) requires
dismissal of Williams’ appeal of his sentence for want of
jurisdiction.
We have reviewed the entire record in accordance with
Anders and have not identified any meritorious issues for
appeal. Accordingly, we affirm Williams’ conviction and dismiss
that part of the appeal relating to sentencing. This court
requires counsel to inform his client, in writing, of his right
to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
3
review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but
counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,
counsel may move in this court to withdraw from representation.
Counsel’s motion must state that a copy of the motion was served
on the client. We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
4