United States v. Anthony Bullock , 493 F. App'x 457 ( 2012 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4065
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ANTHONY CURTIS BULLOCK, a/k/a Dirty,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(4:11-cr-00416-TLW-3)
Submitted: August 14, 2012 Decided: September 6, 2012
Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Joshua Snow Kendrick, KENDRICK & LEONARD, P.C., Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellant. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Curtis Bullock pled guilty in accordance with
a written plea agreement to conspiracy to distribute 280 grams
or more of crack cocaine, five kilograms or more of cocaine,
fifty kilograms of marijuana, and a quantity of methamphetamine,
in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006). In the plea agreement,
the parties stipulated, in accordance with Fed. R. Crim. P.
11(c)(1), that Bullock would receive an eighteen-year sentence.
At sentencing, the district court imposed the stipulated
sentence.
Bullock now appeals. Counsel has filed a brief in
accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
questioning whether the district court complied with Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11 and whether this court has jurisdiction to consider
Bullock’s appeal of his sentence, but stating that there are no
meritorious issues for review. Bullock has filed a pro se brief
claiming that, under United States v. Simmons, 649 F.3d 237 (4th
Cir. 2011) (en banc), he was improperly sentenced as a career
offender. We affirm in part and dismiss in part.
Our review of the transcript of the Rule 11 proceeding
discloses full compliance with the Rule. Further, the record
reflects that Bullock’s plea was knowingly and voluntarily
entered and that there was a factual basis for the plea. We
therefore affirm the conviction.
2
We further conclude that we lack jurisdiction to
review Bullock’s sentence, which was imposed pursuant to a Rule
11(c)(1) plea agreement. “A defendant receiving a sentence
under such a plea agreement may appeal only when his sentence
was imposed in violation of law or was imposed as a result of an
incorrect application of the sentencing [G]uidelines.” United
States v. Sanchez, 146 F.3d 796, 797 (10th Cir. 1998) (internal
quotation marks and alteration omitted); 18 U.S.C. § 3742(c)(1)
(2006). A sentence within the statutory parameters is not
imposed in violation of law. See, e.g., United States v.
Littlefield, 105 F.3d 527, 527-28 (9th Cir. 1997) (per curiam).
A sentence imposed pursuant to a Rule 11(c)(1) plea agreement
cannot be the result of an incorrect application of the
Guidelines because the agreement is contractual and not based
upon the Guidelines. United States v. Cieslowski, 410 F.3d 353,
364 (7th Cir. 2005).
Under these authorities, Bullock’s 216-month sentence,
which falls within the statutory sentencing range of ten years
to life, see 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) (2006), was not imposed in
violation of law. Nor, because the sentence was contracted for,
did it result from an incorrect application of the Guidelines.
Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to review Bullock’s sentence,
and we dismiss this portion of the appeal.
3
We therefore affirm Bullock’s conviction and dismiss
the appeal insofar as it relates to his sentence. This court
requires that counsel inform Bullock, in writing, of his right
to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Bullock 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 of the
motion was served on Bullock.
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