US v. Timmie Issac

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:11-cr-02161-TLW-6. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999043948]. [12-4766]

Appeal: 12-4766

Doc: 22

Filed: 02/14/2013

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-4766

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TIMMIE ISSAC,
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-02161-TLW-6)

Submitted:

January 29, 2013

Before NIEMEYER and
Senior Circuit Judge.

THACKER,

Decided:

Circuit

February 14, 2013

Judges,

and

HAMILTON,

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam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

T. Kirk Truslow, TRUSLOW LAW FIRM, LLC, North Myrtle Beach,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 12-4766

Doc: 22

Filed: 02/14/2013

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Timmie Issac appeals his conviction and ninety-month
sentence imposed following his guilty plea to possession with
intent

to

violation

distribute
of

21

and

U.S.C.

distribution

of

841(b)(1)(C)

(2006).

§

cocaine

base,
On

in

appeal,

Issac’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious
grounds for appeal but questioning whether the district court
complied with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 (“Rule 11”)
during

the

plea

hearing

and

whether

Issac’s

procedurally and substantively reasonable.

sentence

was

Issac was advised of

his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but did not file
one.

Finding

no

meritorious

Issac’s conviction.

grounds

for

appeal,

we

affirm

We dismiss Issac’s appeal of his sentence

for lack of jurisdiction.
Counsel

questions

whether

the

district

court

complied with Rule 11 in accepting Issac’s guilty plea.
review

of

the

substantially

plea

hearing

complied

with

reveals
Rule

11

that
in

the

district

conducting

the

fully
Our
court
plea

colloquy, and committed no error warranting correction on plain
error review.

See United States v. General, 278 F.3d 389, 393

(4th Cir. 2002) (providing standard of review); United States v.
Olano,

507

U.S.

725,

732

(1993)

2

(detailing

plain

error

Appeal: 12-4766

Doc: 22

standard).

Filed: 02/14/2013

Pg: 3 of 4

Thus, the district court did not err in finding

Issac’s guilty plea knowing and voluntary.
Counsel also questions the procedural and substantive
reasonableness of Issac’s sentence.

Issac entered his guilty

plea pursuant to Rule 11(c)(1)(C); therefore, we conclude that
we

lack

jurisdiction

district court.

to

review

the

sentence

imposed

by

the

The federal statute governing appellate review

of a sentence 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 the district court
imposed the sentence “in violation of law . . . [or] as a result
of an incorrect application of the sentencing guidelines.”

18

U.S.C. § 3742(a)(1)-(2), (c) (2006); United States v. Sanchez,
146

F.3d

796,

11(e)(1)(C),

797

&

n.1

predecessor

(10th

Cir.

provision

to

1998)

(concerning

11(c)(1)(C).

Rule
Here,

Issac’s sentence was less than the applicable statutory maximum,
see 18 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C), and, due to a downward departure,
was less than the sentence for which he had bargained.

Thus,

review of his sentence is precluded by § 3742(c).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm Issac’s conviction and dismiss his appeal of
the sentence.
writing,

of

This court requires that counsel inform Issac, in
his

right

to

petition
3

the

Supreme

Court

of

the

Appeal: 12-4766

Doc: 22

Filed: 02/14/2013

Pg: 4 of 4

United States for further review.

If Issac requests that a

petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition
would be 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 Issac.

We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal conclusions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART

4