United States v. Joseph Aniagyei ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4901
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSEPH ATTA ANIAGYEI,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge.
(8:13-cr-00020-RWT-1)
Submitted: September 25, 2014 Decided: September 29, 2014
Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Bruce A. Johnson, Jr., LAW OFFICE OF BRUCE A. JOHNSON, JR., LLC,
Bowie, Maryland, for Appellant. Paul Nitze, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Pursuant to his written plea agreement, Joseph Atta
Aniagyei pled guilty to misusing a social security number, in
violation of 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(7)(B) (2012). Aniagyei had
negotiated an agreement pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P.
11(c)(1)(C), in which the parties stipulated that an eleven-
month sentence was appropriate. After reviewing the presentence
report, the court accepted the plea and imposed the stipulated
sentence. This appeal timely followed.
Aniagyei’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), averring that there
are no meritorious appellate issues but suggesting that
Aniagyei’s plea was not knowingly entered. Although advised of
his right to do so, Aniagyei has not filed a supplemental brief.
The Government has not filed a response. Finding no error, we
affirm in part and dismiss in part.
Where, as here, a defendant has not moved to withdraw
his guilty plea, we review his Rule 11 hearing for plain error.
United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002).
The record reflects that the district court fully complied with
the mandates of Rule 11, ensuring that Aniagyei’s guilty plea
was knowing and voluntary and supported by an independent basis
in fact. We therefore affirm Aniagyei’s conviction.
2
To the extent that this Anders appeal would require us
to review Aniagyei’s sentence, we note that it was imposed
pursuant to a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement. As the Tenth
Circuit has explained, the federal statute governing appellate
review of a sentence, see 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a), (c) (2012),
limits the circumstances under which a defendant may appeal a
sentence to which he stipulated in a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea
agreement to claims that his sentence “was (1) imposed in
violation of the law, (2) imposed as a result of an incorrect
application of the Guidelines, or (3) is greater than the
sentence set forth in the plea agreement.” United States v.
Calderon, 428 F.3d 928, 932 (10th Cir. 2005). None of these
exceptions apply here. Aniagyei’s sentence was less than the
applicable statutory maximum of five years’ imprisonment, see 42
U.S.C. § 408(a) (2012), and was precisely what he and the
Government agreed was appropriate. Moreover, the sentence was
not imposed as a result of an incorrect application of the
Sentencing Guidelines because it was based on the parties’
agreement — not on the district court’s calculation of the
Guidelines. See United States v. Brown, 653 F.3d 337, 339–40
(4th Cir. 2011); United States v. Cieslowski, 410 F.3d 353, 364
(7th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, review of Aniagyei’s sentence is
precluded by § 3742(c)(1).
3
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm Aniagyei’s conviction and dismiss this appeal
as to his sentence. This court requires that counsel inform
Aniagyei, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court
of the United States for further review. If Aniagyei 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 Aniagyei. 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
4