US v. Leco Harrell

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:13-cr-00651-WDQ-2 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999480777].. [14-4309]

Appeal: 14-4309

Doc: 28

Filed: 11/24/2014

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4309

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LECO HARRELL,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
William D. Quarles, Jr., District
Judge. (1:13-cr-00651-WDQ-2)

Submitted:

November 20, 2014

Decided:

November 24, 2014

Before KING and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam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

Charles N. Curlett, Jr., LEVIN & CURLETT LLC, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellant.
Clinton Jacob Fuchs, Assistant United
States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4309

Doc: 28

Filed: 11/24/2014

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Pursuant

to

a

written

plea

agreement,

Leco

Harrell

pled guilty to two counts of using a communication facility to
facilitate

a

felony

§ 843(b) (2012).

drug

offense,

in

violation

of

21

U.S.C.

Harrell had negotiated an agreement pursuant

to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C), in which the parties stipulated
that a sixty-month sentence was appropriate.

The district court

accepted

Harrell

months

the

in

plea

agreement

prison—thirty

consecutively.

and

months

sentenced

on

each

count,

to

to
be

sixty
served

This appeal timely followed.

Harrell’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), averring that there are no
meritorious
sentence.

issues

but

seeking

review

of

the

conviction

and

Although advised of his right to do so, Harrell has

not filed a pro se supplemental brief.
filed a response.

The Government has not

Finding no error, we affirm in part and

dismiss in part.
Where,

as

here,

a

defendant

has

not

moved

in

the

district court to withdraw his guilty plea, we review his plea
hearing for plain error.
517,

525

(4th

Cir.

2002).

United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d
To

prevail

under

this

standard,

Harrell must establish “that an error occurred, that the error
was plain, and that the error affected his substantial rights.”
United States v. Heyer, 740 F.3d 284, 290 (4th Cir. 2014).
2

Our

Appeal: 14-4309

Doc: 28

Filed: 11/24/2014

Pg: 3 of 4

review of the record confirms that the district court complied
with the mandates of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, ensuring that Harrell
was

competent

to

plead

guilty

and

that

his

guilty

plea

was

knowing, voluntary, and supported by an independent basis in
fact.

We therefore affirm Harrell’s convictions.
Further,

we

conclude

review Harrell’s sentence.

that

we

lack

jurisdiction

to

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 stipulated sentence in a
Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement to claims that his sentence was
imposed in violation of the law or as a result of an erroneous
application of the Guidelines, or that it exceeds the sentence
set forth in the plea agreement.

United States v. Calderon, 428

F.3d 928, 932 (10th Cir. 2005).

None of these exceptions apply

here.

Harrell’s

applicable

sentence

statutory

§ 843(d)(1) (2012).

on

maximum

each
of

count

four

was

less

years.

See

than
21

the

U.S.C.

The sentence was not imposed as a result of

an incorrect application of the Sentencing Guidelines because it
was

based

on

the

parties’

agreement

court’s calculation of the Guidelines.

–

not

on

the

district

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, sixty

months is the exact sentence set forth in the plea agreement.
3

Appeal: 14-4309

Doc: 28

Accordingly,

Filed: 11/24/2014

review

of

Pg: 4 of 4

Harrell’s

sentence

is

precluded

by

§ 3742(c)(1).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.

We

therefore affirm Harrell’s convictions and dismiss this appeal
as to his sentence.

This court requires that counsel inform

Harrell, 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 Harrell requests
believes

that

such

a

petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court
for leave to withdraw from representation.
must

state

dispense

that

with

contentions

are

a
oral

copy

thereof

argument

adequately

was

served

because

presented

in

the
the

Counsel’s motion
on

Harrell.

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART

4