US v. Robert Goin

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:12-cr-00669-RBH-3 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999417168]. [14-4071]

Appeal: 14-4071

Doc: 47

Filed: 08/18/2014

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4071

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ROBERT EARL GOINS, a/k/a Robert Earl,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(4:12-cr-00669-RBH-3)

Submitted:

August 11, 2014

Decided:

August 18, 2014

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part, dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam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

John M. Ervin, III, Darlington, South Carolina, for Appellant.
Arthur
Bradley
Parham,
Assistant
United
States
Attorney,
Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4071

Doc: 47

Filed: 08/18/2014

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Pursuant
Goins

pled

cocaine

guilty

and

to

a

to

conspiracy

cocaine

written

base,

plea
to

in

agreement,

distribute
violation

§§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), 846 (2012).

a

Robert

Earl

quantity

of

21

of

U.S.C.

Goins negotiated a Fed. R.

Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C) agreement, in which the parties stipulated
that a 132-month sentence was appropriate.

The district court

accepted the sentencing stipulation and sentenced Goins to 132
months in prison.
Goins
pursuant

to

appeals.

Anders

v.

His

attorney

California,

386

has

filed

U.S.

738

a

brief
(1967),

questioning whether the district court complied with Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11 and whether the sentence was reasonable.

Goins has

filed a pro se supplemental brief raising an additional issue.
We affirm in part and dismiss in part.
Our

review

of

the

transcript

of

Goins’

Rule

11

transcript reveals that the district court complied with the
Rule, that the plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered, and
that

Goins

conceded

his

guilt.

Accordingly,

we

affirm

his

conviction.
We lack jurisdiction to review Goins’ sentence.

A

defendant may appeal a sentence to which he stipulated in a Rule
11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement only if his sentence “was (1) imposed
in violation of the law, (2) [was] imposed as a result of an
2

Appeal: 14-4071

Doc: 47

Filed: 08/18/2014

Pg: 3 of 4

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); see 18 U.S.C.
§ 3742(a), (c) (2012).

None of the exceptions applies here.

Goins’ sentence is below the statutory maximum of twenty years.
See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C).

Further, the sentence was not

imposed

incorrect

as

a

result

of

an

application

of

the

Guidelines because it was based on the parties’ agreement rather
than

on

range.

the

district

court’s

calculation

of

the

Guidelines

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).

Finally, 132 months is the exact sentence set forth

in the plea agreement.

Accordingly, we conclude that we may not

review Goins’ stipulated sentence. *
Pursuant to Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.

We

therefore affirm Goins’ conviction but dismiss the appeal of his
sentence.

This court requires that counsel inform his client,

in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the

*

Because Goins’ sentence was based on the agreement and not
the Guidelines, we decline to address his contention in the
pro se brief that he was improperly determined to be a career
offender.
We note, however, that he had more than enough
criminal history points to place him in criminal history
category VI.

3

Appeal: 14-4071

Doc: 47

Filed: 08/18/2014

Pg: 4 of 4

United States for further review.

If Goins requests that a

petition be filed, but counsel 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 his client.

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 the decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART

4