US v. Damien Boddy, No. 16-4649 (4th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-4649 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. DAMIEN TRAVIS BODDY, Defendant -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 Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 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 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 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
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
