UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4141
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
TIMOTHY TYRONE ALEXANDER, a/k/a Skeet,
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-1)
Submitted: September 17, 2012 Decided: October 2, 2012
Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part, dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Bradley M. Kirkland, BRADLEY M. KIRKLAND, LLC, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Timothy Tyrone Alexander 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 Alexander would receive a sentence of
180 months. At sentencing, the district court imposed the
stipulated sentence.
Alexander 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
Alexander’s appeal of his sentence, but stating that there are
no meritorious issues for review. Alexander was advised of his
right to file a pro se brief but has not filed such a brief. We
affirm in part and dismiss in part.
Our review of the transcript of the Rule 11 proceeding
discloses substantial compliance with the Rule. Further, the
record reflects that the 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 Alexander’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, Alexander’s 180-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
Alexander’s sentence, and we dismiss this portion of the appeal.
3
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm Alexander’s conviction and dismiss
the appeal insofar as it relates to his sentence. This court
requires that counsel inform Alexander, in writing, of his right
to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Alexander 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 Alexander.
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