US v. Roger Ford

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to withdraw [998921734-2]; granting Motion to dismiss appeal [998939854-2] Originating case number: 1:10-cr-00336-BEL-5 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999010025].. [12-4033]

Appeal: 12-4033

Doc: 79

Filed: 12/26/2012

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-4033

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROGER FORD, a/k/a Tink, a/k/a Tavon, a/k/a T,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Benson Everett Legg, District Judge.
(1:10-cr-00336-BEL-5)

Submitted:

December 20, 2012

Before KING and
Circuit Judge.

SHEDD,

Circuit

Decided:

Judges,

and

December 26, 2012

HAMILTON,

Senior

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.

Neal Gary Rosensweig, NEAL GARY ROSENSWEIG, P.A., Hollywood,
Florida, for Appellant.
Christopher John Romano, Assistant
United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-4033

Doc: 79

Filed: 12/26/2012

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Pursuant

to

a

written

plea

agreement,

Roger

Ford

pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute and to possess with
intent to distribute controlled substances, in violation of 21
U.S.C. §§ 846, 860 (2006).

The plea agreement contained two

relevant

that

stipulations:

(1)

the

conspiracy

involved

at

least 5 kilograms of cocaine and 280 grams of crack cocaine; and
(2) that a 180-month term of imprisonment was appropriate.
Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C).

See

The district court subsequently

sentenced Ford to the stipulated term.

Ford timely noted this

appeal.
On appeal, Ford’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant
to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there
are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether
the district court complied with the mandates of Rule 11 in
accepting Ford’s guilty plea and the reasonableness of Ford’s
sentence.

Although advised of his right to do so, Ford has not

filed a pro se supplemental brief.

The Government has moved to

dismiss the appeal of Ford’s sentence for lack of jurisdiction.
For the reasons that follow, we affirm Ford’s conviction, but we
grant the Government’s motion and dismiss the appeal of Ford’s
sentence.
We first address Ford’s conviction.

Because Ford did

not move to withdraw his guilty plea in the district court, we
2

Appeal: 12-4033

Doc: 79

Filed: 12/26/2012

Pg: 3 of 4

United States v.

review the Rule 11 hearing for plain error.
Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002).

“To establish

plain error, [Ford] must show that an error occurred, that the
error was plain, and that the error affected his substantial
rights.”
2007).

United States v. Muhammad, 478 F.3d 247, 249 (4th Cir.
Based on our review of the record, we conclude that the

district court substantially complied with Rule 11 and committed
no error warranting correction on plain error review.
Turning, then, to the motion to dismiss, we agree with
the

Government

that

we

do

portion of the appeal.

not

have

jurisdiction

over

this

Under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(c) (2006), a

defendant’s appeal of a sentence to which he stipulated in a
Rule
where

11(c)(1)(C)
his

imposed

plea

“sentence

as

a

agreement

was

result

sentencing guidelines.”

imposed

of

an

is

limited

in

violation

incorrect

to
of

circumstances
law

application

or

was

of

the

United States v. Sanchez, 146 F.3d 796,

797 (10th Cir. 1998) (alteration and internal quotation marks
omitted); see United States v. Littlefield, 105 F.3d 527, 527–28
(9th Cir. 1997).
Here, Ford’s sentence was not imposed in violation of
law, as his 180-month sentence is within the maximum sentence of
life

imprisonment.

See

21

U.S.C.

§ 841(b)(1)(A) (West 1999 & Supp. 2012).

§ 846;

21

U.S.C.A.

Additionally, Ford’s

sentence is not the result of an incorrect application of the
3

Appeal: 12-4033

Doc: 79

Guidelines,

Filed: 12/26/2012

because

a

Pg: 4 of 4

sentence

imposed

pursuant

to

a

Rule

11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement is contractual and not based upon the
Guidelines.

United States v. Cieslowski, 410 F.3d 353, 364 (7th

Cir. 2005).

Because § 3742(c) bars review of a sentence imposed

pursuant to a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement and none of the
exceptions apply, we dismiss the appeal of Ford’s sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and conclude that there are no meritorious
issues

for

appeal.

Otherwise,

we

grant

appeal

to

We

Ford’s

as

the

therefore

affirm

Government’s

sentence.

Ford’s

motion

Finally,

and

we

conviction.
dismiss

deny

the

appellate

counsel’s motion to withdraw from representation at this time.
This court requires that counsel inform Ford, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review.

If Ford requests that a petition be filed, but

counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
counsel

may

move

representation.

in

and

materials

legal
before

court

for

leave

to

withdraw

from

Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof

was served on Ford.
facts

this

We dispense with oral argument because the

contentions

are

adequately

this

and

argument

court

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
4