UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4649
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
DAMIEN TRAVIS BODDY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. George J. Hazel, District Judge.
(8:14-cr-00528-GJH-1)
Submitted: March 6, 2017 Decided: March 14, 2017
Before WILKINSON, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Dana R. Cormier, DANA R. CORMIER, P.L.C., Staunton, Virginia,
for Appellant. Michael Thomas Packard, Assistant United States
Attorney, Erin Baxter Pulice, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland; Rod J. Rosenstein, United States
Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
In accordance with a written plea agreement, Damien Travis
Boddy pled guilty to possession of a firearm not registered to
him in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record,
26 U.S.C. § 5861(d) (2012) (Count One), and transportation of
explosive materials with the intent to kill, injure, or
intimidate, 18 U.S.C. § 844(d) (2012) (Count Two). In the
negotiated plea agreement, the parties stipulated, in accordance
with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C), that a sentence of 120-240
months was appropriate. After reviewing the presentence
investigation report, the district court accepted the plea and
sentenced Boddy to 24 months on Count One and 120 months,
consecutive, on Count Two.
Boddy appeals. His attorney has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (19676), raising two issues
but concluding that there are no meritorious issues for appeal.
Boddy was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental
brief but has not filed such a brief. We affirm in part and
dismiss in part.
With respect to the convictions, our review of the Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11 hearing transcript confirms that the district court
fully complied with the Rule. Further, Boddy’s guilty plea was
knowingly and voluntarily entered and supported by an
independent basis in fact. We therefore affirm his convictions.
2
We hold that we lack jurisdiction to review the sentence.
As the Tenth Circuit has explained, 18 U.S.C. § 3742(c) (2012)
limits the circumstances under which a defendant may appeal a
sentence to which he stipulated pursuant to Rule 11(c)(1)(C).
United States v. Calderon, 428 F.3d 928, 932 (10th Cir. 2005).
None of those circumstances are present in Boddy’s case. His
sentence was less than the statutory maximums, see 18 U.S.C.
§ 844(d), 26 U.S.C. § 5671 (2012), and fell within the range set
forth in the plea agreement. 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 Boddy’s sentence is
precluded, and we dismiss this portion of the appeal.
Pursuant to Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and
have found no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we
affirm in part and dismiss in part. This court requires that
counsel inform Boddy, in writing, of the right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Boddy
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
3
motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Boddy. 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