UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4688
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BYRON DAVID PAIGE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(4:11-cr-02158-RBH-1)
Submitted: February 15, 2013 Decided: March 28, 2013
Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Louis H. Lang, CALLISON, TIGHE & ROBINSON, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Byron David Paige appeals the district court’s
judgment imposing a sentence of 120 months in prison after he
pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and
ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2),
924(e) (2006). The parties agreed that a sentence of 120 months
in prison was the appropriate disposition of the case pursuant
to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C), and the district court accepted
the agreement. Paige’s attorney has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting, in his
opinion, that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but
raising the issues of whether this Court has jurisdiction to
consider his appeal of the stipulated sentence, and whether his
sentence was imposed in violation of the law or as a result of
an incorrect application of the Sentencing Guidelines. Paige
was notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief
but has not done so. We dismiss in part and affirm in part.
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a), (c) (2006), “[w]here
a defendant agrees to and receives a specific sentence, he may
appeal the sentence only if it 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). “Otherwise, the Court lacks jurisdiction
2
over the appeal.” Id. Here, the district court imposed the
specific sentence to which Paige agreed, and the sentence did
not exceed the statutory maximum. Moreover, it could not have
been imposed as a result of an incorrect application of the
Guidelines because it was based on the parties’ Rule 11(c)(1)(C)
agreement and 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). We therefore dismiss Paige’s appeal to the
extent that he challenges the stipulated sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore dismiss the appeal in part and affirm the
district court’s judgment. This court requires that counsel
inform his or her client, in writing, of his or her right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If the client 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 the client.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
3
before this Court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART
4