UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4309
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LECO HARRELL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District
Judge. (1:13-cr-00651-WDQ-2)
Submitted: November 20, 2014 Decided: November 24, 2014
Before KING and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Charles N. Curlett, Jr., LEVIN & CURLETT LLC, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellant. Clinton Jacob Fuchs, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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, Leco Harrell
pled guilty to two counts of using a communication facility to
facilitate a felony drug offense, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 843(b) (2012). Harrell had negotiated an agreement pursuant
to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C), in which the parties stipulated
that a sixty-month sentence was appropriate. The district court
accepted the plea agreement and sentenced Harrell to sixty
months in prison—thirty months on each count, to be served
consecutively. This appeal timely followed.
Harrell’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), averring that there are no
meritorious issues but seeking review of the conviction and
sentence. Although advised of his right to do so, Harrell has
not filed a pro se 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 in the
district court to withdraw his guilty plea, we review his plea
hearing for plain error. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d
517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). To prevail under this standard,
Harrell must establish “that an error occurred, that the error
was plain, and that the error affected his substantial rights.”
United States v. Heyer, 740 F.3d 284, 290 (4th Cir. 2014). Our
2
review of the record confirms that the district court complied
with the mandates of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, ensuring that Harrell
was competent to plead guilty and that his guilty plea was
knowing, voluntary, and supported by an independent basis in
fact. We therefore affirm Harrell’s convictions.
Further, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction to
review Harrell’s sentence. 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 stipulated sentence in a
Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement to claims that his sentence was
imposed in violation of the law or as a result of an erroneous
application of the Guidelines, or that it exceeds 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. Harrell’s sentence on each count was less than the
applicable statutory maximum of four years. See 21 U.S.C.
§ 843(d)(1) (2012). 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). Finally, sixty
months is the exact sentence set forth in the plea agreement.
3
Accordingly, review of Harrell’s sentence is precluded by
§ 3742(c)(1).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm Harrell’s convictions and dismiss this appeal
as to his sentence. This court requires that counsel inform
Harrell, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court
of the United States for further review. If Harrell 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 Harrell. 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