US v. Damien Boddy

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:14-cr-00528-GJH-1. Copies to all parties and the district court. [1000041864]. [16-4649]

Appeal: 16-4649

Doc: 21

Filed: 03/14/2017

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4649

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
DAMIEN TRAVIS BODDY,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.
George J. Hazel, District Judge.
(8:14-cr-00528-GJH-1)

Submitted:

March 6, 2017

Decided:

March 14, 2017

Before WILKINSON, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam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

Dana R. Cormier, DANA R. CORMIER, P.L.C., Staunton, Virginia,
for Appellant.
Michael Thomas Packard, Assistant United States
Attorney, Erin Baxter Pulice, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland; Rod J. Rosenstein, United States
Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-4649

Doc: 21

Filed: 03/14/2017

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
In accordance with a written plea agreement, Damien Travis
Boddy pled guilty to possession of a firearm not registered to
him in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record,
26 U.S.C. § 5861(d) (2012) (Count One), and transportation of
explosive

materials

intimidate,

18

with

U.S.C.

the

intent
(2012)

§ 844(d)

to

kill,

(Count

injure,

Two).

In

or
the

negotiated plea agreement, the parties stipulated, in accordance
with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C), that a sentence of 120-240
months

was

appropriate.

After

reviewing

the

presentence

investigation report, the district court accepted the plea and
sentenced

Boddy

to

24

months

on

Count

One

and

120

months,

consecutive, on Count Two.
Boddy appeals.

His attorney has filed a brief pursuant to

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (19676), raising two issues
but concluding that there are no meritorious issues for appeal.
Boddy was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental
brief but has not filed such a brief.

We affirm in part and

dismiss in part.
With respect to the convictions, our review of the Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11 hearing transcript confirms that the district court
fully complied with the Rule.
knowingly

and

voluntarily

independent basis in fact.

Further, Boddy’s guilty plea was
entered

and

supported

by

an

We therefore affirm his convictions.
2

Appeal: 16-4649

Doc: 21

Filed: 03/14/2017

Pg: 3 of 4

We hold that we lack jurisdiction to review the sentence.
As the Tenth Circuit has explained, 18 U.S.C. § 3742(c) (2012)
limits the circumstances under which a defendant may appeal a
sentence to which he stipulated pursuant to Rule 11(c)(1)(C).
United States v. Calderon, 428 F.3d 928, 932 (10th Cir. 2005).
None of those circumstances are present in Boddy’s case.

His

sentence was less than the statutory maximums, see 18 U.S.C.
§ 844(d), 26 U.S.C. § 5671 (2012), and fell within the range set
forth in the plea agreement.

Moreover, the sentence was not

imposed

incorrect

as

sentencing
agreement

a

result

Guidelines
--

Guidelines.

not

on

of

an

because
the

it

district

was

application

based

court’s

on

of

the

the

parties’

calculation

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 Boddy’s sentence is

precluded, and we dismiss this portion of the appeal.
Pursuant to Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and
have found no meritorious issues for appeal.

Accordingly, we

affirm in part and dismiss in part. This court requires that
counsel inform Boddy, in writing, of the right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review.

If Boddy

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.
3

Counsel’s

Appeal: 16-4649

Doc: 21

Filed: 03/14/2017

Pg: 4 of 4

motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Boddy.
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