US v. Freddie Jackson
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:13-cr-01015-RBH-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999501669]. [14-4587]
Appeal: 14-4587
Doc: 21
Filed: 12/30/2014
Pg: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4587
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
FREDDIE JACKSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(4:13-cr-01015-RBH-1)
Submitted:
December 22, 2014
Decided:
December 30, 2014
Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed in part, dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Michael A. Meetze, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Florence,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 14-4587
Doc: 21
Filed: 12/30/2014
Pg: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Freddie Jackson appeals his conviction and the sixtymonth sentence imposed following his guilty plea to possession
with
intent
violation
to
of
distribute
21
U.S.C.
and
distribution
§ 841(a)(1),
of
cocaine,
(b)(1)(C)
in
(2012).
On
appeal, Jackson’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no
meritorious
district
grounds
court
fully
for
appeal
complied
but
with
questioning
Federal
whether
Rule
Procedure 11 in accepting Jackson’s guilty plea.
of
the
Criminal
Counsel also
questions whether Jackson’s sentence is reasonable; however, he
concedes
that
we
issue.
Jackson
do
was
not
have
advised
jurisdiction
of
his
right
supplemental brief but did not file one.
grounds
for
appeal,
we
affirm
to
to
consider
file
a
that
pro
se
Finding no meritorious
Jackson’s
conviction.
To
the
extent that Jackson seeks to appeal his sentence, we dismiss
that portion of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Jackson
first
questions
whether
erred in accepting his guilty plea.
the
district
court
Our review of the plea
hearing reveals that the district court substantially complied
with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 in conducting the
plea colloquy and committed no error warranting correction on
2
Appeal: 14-4587
Doc: 21
Filed: 12/30/2014
plain error review. *
517,
532
(4th
Cir.
Pg: 3 of 4
See United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d
2002).
Thus,
the
court
did
not
err
in
accepting Jackson’s knowing and voluntary guilty plea.
Turning to the appeal of Jackson’s sentence, counsel
correctly observes in the Anders brief that we lack jurisdiction
to consider such an appeal because Jackson entered a guilty plea
pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C).
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
violation
of
application
the
district
law
.
of
the
.
.
court
[or]
imposed
as
sentencing
a
the
result
sentence
of
an
Guidelines.”
“in
incorrect
18
U.S.C.
§ 3742(a)(1)-(2), (c) (2012); see United States v. Calderon, 428
F.3d 928, 932 (10th Cir. 2005).
less
than
the
applicable
Here, Jackson’s sentence was
statutory
maximum,
see
21
U.S.C.
§ 841(b)(1)(C), was not based upon the Sentencing Guidelines,
and was the sentence for which he bargained.
Thus, review of
his sentence is precluded by § 3742(c).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
*
We decline to sua sponte enforce Jackson’s waiver of
appellate rights in the plea agreement.
See United States v.
Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir. 2005).
3
Appeal: 14-4587
Doc: 21
appeal.
Filed: 12/30/2014
Pg: 4 of 4
We therefore affirm Jackson’s conviction and dismiss
the appeal to the extent that he seeks review of his sentence.
This court requires that counsel inform Jackson, in writing, of
his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review.
If Jackson requests that a petition be filed,
but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,
counsel
may
move
representation.
in
this
court
for
leave
to
withdraw
from
Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Jackson.
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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?