UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4762
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSEPH LAVERN ROBINSON, a/k/a Jo Jo,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District
Judge. (4:09-cr-01271-TLW-1)
Submitted: May 23, 2013 Decided: May 28, 2013
Before MOTZ and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
John M. Ervin, III, Darlington, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Joseph Lavern Robinson appeals his conviction and 180-
month sentence following his guilty plea to conspiracy to
possess with intent to distribute and distribute fifty grams or
more of cocaine base and five kilograms or more of cocaine, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006). In accordance with Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Robinson’s counsel has filed a
brief certifying that there are no meritorious issues for appeal
but questioning whether the district court adequately complied
with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 when accepting Robinson’s plea and
whether Robinson’s sentence is reasonable. Although notified of
his right to do so, Robinson has not filed a supplemental brief.
Finding no error, we affirm in part and dismiss in part.
Where, as here, a defendant did not move to withdraw
his plea, we review his Rule 11 hearing for plain error. United
States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). Because
the district court substantially complied with Rule 11 when
accepting Robinson’s plea, we find that the plea was knowing and
voluntary and, therefore, final and binding. United States v.
Lambey, 974 F.2d 1389, 1394 (4th Cir. 1992) (en banc).
To the extent Robinson seeks to appeal his sentence,
we conclude that we lack jurisdiction to consider his appeal.
The district court sentenced Robinson in accordance with the
sentencing agreement that he and the Government reached pursuant
2
to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C). The statute governing
appellate review of a sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 3742(c) (2006),
limits the circumstances under which a defendant may appeal a
sentence to which he stipulated in a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea
agreement to claims that his sentence “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 over the appeal.” Id. Here,
Robinson’s sentence was less than his statutory maximum and was
precisely what he and the Government agreed was appropriate.
Moreover, the sentence was not 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. Accordingly, review of
Robinson’s sentence is precluded by § 3742(c).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm Robinson’s conviction and dismiss his appeal of
his sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Robinson, in
writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United
States for further review. If Robinson requests that a petition be
filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be
3
frivolous, counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw
from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy
thereof was served on Robinson. 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 in the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
4