United States v. Dowdell

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4568
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
TERRY L. DOWDELL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. James H. Michael, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (CR-02-107)
Submitted: November 17, 2005 Decided: December 16, 2005
Before WILKINS, Chief Judge, LUTTIG, Circuit Judge, and Walter D.
KELLEY, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District
of Virginia, sitting by designation.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Frederick T. Heblich, Jr., FREDERICK T. HEBLICH, JR., P.C.,
Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant. John L. Brownlee, United
States Attorney, Jean B. Hudson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia; Ellen R. Meltzer, Joel E.
Leising, Attorneys, Fraud Section, Criminal Division, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Terry L. Dowdell appeals a 180-month prison sentence imposed
by the district court after Dowdell pleaded guilty to two charges
arising from his operation of an international Ponzi scheme.
Dowdell claims that the district court erred by failing to sentence
him in accordance with sentencing provisions contained in an
earlier plea agreement between Dowdell and the Government. Dowdell
argues that these provisions became binding on the district court
when it accepted the original plea agreement. See Fed. R. Crim. P.
11(c)(1)(C). This argument is meritless. The original plea
agreement and Dowdell’s plea colloquy with the district court made
clear that the sentencing provisions in the agreement were merely
recommendations that did not bind the court in determining
Dowdell’s sentence. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(B); United
States v. Gordon, 61 F.3d 263, 266-67 (4th Cir. 1995); United
States v. Jackson, 563 F.2d 1145, 1147 n.4 (4th Cir. 1977).
Further, the record shows that Dowdell’s subsequent guilty plea to
reduced charges--entered after he was permitted to withdraw his
original plea--was voluntary.
We thus affirm Dowdell’s sentence. 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
2