US v. Damien Boddy
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:14-cr-00528-GJH-1. Copies to all parties and the district court. . [16-4649]
Pg: 1 of 4
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
DAMIEN TRAVIS BODDY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.
George J. Hazel, District Judge.
March 6, 2017
March 14, 2017
Before WILKINSON, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
Dana R. Cormier, DANA R. CORMIER, P.L.C., Staunton, Virginia,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 4
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
negotiated plea agreement, the parties stipulated, in accordance
with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C), that a sentence of 120-240
investigation report, the district court accepted the plea and
consecutive, on Count Two.
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.
independent basis in fact.
Further, Boddy’s guilty plea was
We therefore affirm his convictions.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Pg: 4 of 4
motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Boddy.
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
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?