US v. Anthony Bullock

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:11-cr-00416-TLW-3 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998932019].. [12-4065]

Appeal: 12-4065

Doc: 45

Filed: 09/06/2012

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-4065

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ANTHONY CURTIS BULLOCK, a/k/a Dirty,
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-3)

Submitted:

August 14, 2012

Decided:

September 6, 2012

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam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

Joshua Snow Kendrick, KENDRICK & LEONARD, P.C., 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-4065

Doc: 45

Filed: 09/06/2012

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Anthony Curtis Bullock 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).
the

parties

stipulated,

in

In the plea agreement,

accordance

with

Fed.

R.

Crim.

P.

11(c)(1), that Bullock would receive an eighteen-year sentence.
At

sentencing,

the

district

court

imposed

the

stipulated

sentence.
Bullock now appeals.
accordance

with

Anders

v.

Counsel has filed a brief in

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
Bullock’s appeal of his sentence, but stating that there are no
meritorious issues for review.

Bullock has filed a pro se brief

claiming that, under United States v. Simmons, 649 F.3d 237 (4th
Cir. 2011) (en banc), he was improperly sentenced as a career
offender.

We affirm in part and dismiss in part.
Our review of the transcript of the Rule 11 proceeding

discloses full compliance with the Rule.
reflects

that

Bullock’s

plea

was

Further, the record

knowingly

and

voluntarily

entered and that there was a factual basis for the plea.
therefore affirm the conviction.
2

We

Appeal: 12-4065

Doc: 45

We

Filed: 09/06/2012

further

conclude

Pg: 3 of 4

that

we

lack

jurisdiction

to

review Bullock’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).
imposed

A
in

sentence

within

violation

of

the

law.

statutory
See,

parameters

e.g.,

United

is

States

not
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, Bullock’s 216-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 Bullock’s sentence,
and we dismiss this portion of the appeal.

3

Appeal: 12-4065

Doc: 45

Filed: 09/06/2012

Pg: 4 of 4

We therefore affirm Bullock’s conviction and dismiss
the appeal insofar as it relates to his sentence.

This court

requires that counsel inform Bullock, in writing, of his right
to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review.

If

Bullock

requests

that

a

petition

be

filed,

but

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

may

move

representation.

in

this

court

for

leave

to

withdraw

from

Counsel’s motion must state that a copy of the

motion was served on Bullock.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal
before

contentions
the

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART

4