US v. Joseph Aniagyei

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:13-cr-00020-RWT-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999444535].. [13-4901]

Appeal: 13-4901

Doc: 40

Filed: 09/29/2014

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4901

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSEPH ATTA ANIAGYEI,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge.
(8:13-cr-00020-RWT-1)

Submitted:

September 25, 2014

Decided:

September 29, 2014

Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam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

Bruce A. Johnson, Jr., LAW OFFICE OF BRUCE A. JOHNSON, JR., LLC,
Bowie, Maryland, for Appellant.
Paul Nitze, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-4901

Doc: 40

Filed: 09/29/2014

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Pursuant to his written plea agreement, Joseph Atta
Aniagyei pled guilty to misusing a social security number, in
violation

of

negotiated

42

an

U.S.C.

§ 408(a)(7)(B)

agreement

pursuant

(2012).

to

Fed.

Aniagyei
R.

Crim.

had
P.

11(c)(1)(C), in which the parties stipulated that an elevenmonth sentence was appropriate.

After reviewing the presentence

report, the court accepted the plea and imposed the stipulated
sentence.

This appeal timely followed.
Aniagyei’s

counsel

has

filed

a

brief

pursuant

to

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), averring that there
are

no

meritorious

appellate

issues

Aniagyei’s plea was not knowingly entered.

but

suggesting

that

Although advised of

his right to do so, Aniagyei has not filed a supplemental brief.
The Government has not filed a response.

Finding no error, we

affirm in part and dismiss in part.
Where, as here, a defendant has not moved to withdraw
his guilty plea, we review his Rule 11 hearing for plain error.
United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002).
The record reflects that the district court fully complied with
the mandates of Rule 11, ensuring that Aniagyei’s guilty plea
was knowing and voluntary and supported by an independent basis
in fact.

We therefore affirm Aniagyei’s conviction.

2

Appeal: 13-4901

Doc: 40

Filed: 09/29/2014

Pg: 3 of 4

To the extent that this Anders appeal would require us
to

review

Aniagyei’s

sentence,

we

note

that

it

pursuant to a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement.

was

imposed

As the Tenth

Circuit has explained, the federal statute governing appellate
review

of

a

sentence,

see

18

U.S.C.

§ 3742(a),

(c)

(2012),

limits the circumstances under which a defendant may appeal a
sentence

to

agreement

which

to

he

claims

stipulated
that

his

in

a

Rule

sentence

11(c)(1)(C)

“was

(1)

plea

imposed

in

violation of the law, (2) imposed as a result of an incorrect
application

of

the

Guidelines,

or

(3)

is

greater

sentence set forth in the plea agreement.”

the

United States v.

Calderon, 428 F.3d 928, 932 (10th Cir. 2005).
exceptions apply here.

than

None of these

Aniagyei’s sentence was less than the

applicable statutory maximum of five years’ imprisonment, see 42
U.S.C.

§ 408(a)

(2012),

and

was

precisely

Government agreed was appropriate.
not

imposed

Sentencing
agreement

as

a

result

Guidelines
—

Guidelines.

not

on

of

because
the

an
it

district

what

he

and

the

Moreover, the sentence was

incorrect
was

application

based

court’s

on

the

calculation

of

the

parties’
of

the

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).

Accordingly, review of Aniagyei’s sentence is

precluded by § 3742(c)(1).

3

Appeal: 13-4901

Doc: 40

Filed: 09/29/2014

Pg: 4 of 4

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.

We

therefore affirm Aniagyei’s conviction and dismiss this appeal
as to his sentence.

This court requires that counsel inform

Aniagyei, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court
of the United States for further review.
that

a

petition

be

filed,

but

counsel

If Aniagyei requests
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 Aniagyei.
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART

4