US v. Roger Ford, No. 12-4033 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4033 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ROGER FORD, a/k/a Tink, a/k/a Tavon, a/k/a T, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, District Judge. (1:10-cr-00336-BEL-5) Submitted: December 20, 2012 Before KING and Circuit Judge. SHEDD, Circuit Decided: Judges, and December 26, 2012 HAMILTON, Senior Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Neal Gary Rosensweig, NEAL GARY ROSENSWEIG, P.A., Hollywood, Florida, for Appellant. Christopher John Romano, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Pursuant to a written plea agreement, Roger Ford pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute controlled substances, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 860 (2006). The plea agreement contained two relevant that stipulations: (1) the conspiracy involved at least 5 kilograms of cocaine and 280 grams of crack cocaine; and (2) that a 180-month term of imprisonment was appropriate. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C). See The district court subsequently sentenced Ford to the stipulated term. Ford timely noted this appeal. On appeal, Ford s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether the district court complied with the mandates of Rule 11 in accepting Ford s guilty plea and the reasonableness of Ford s sentence. Although advised of his right to do so, Ford has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. The Government has moved to dismiss the appeal of Ford s sentence for lack of jurisdiction. For the reasons that follow, we affirm Ford s conviction, but we grant the Government s motion and dismiss the appeal of Ford s sentence. We first address Ford s conviction. Because Ford did not move to withdraw his guilty plea in the district court, we 2 United States v. review the Rule 11 hearing for plain error. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). To establish plain error, [Ford] must show that an error occurred, that the error was plain, and that the error affected his substantial rights. 2007). United States v. Muhammad, 478 F.3d 247, 249 (4th Cir. Based on our review of the record, we conclude that the district court substantially complied with Rule 11 and committed no error warranting correction on plain error review. Turning, then, to the motion to dismiss, we agree with the Government that we do portion of the appeal. not have jurisdiction over this Under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(c) (2006), a defendant s appeal of a sentence to which he stipulated in a Rule where 11(c)(1)(C) his imposed plea sentence as a agreement was result sentencing guidelines. imposed of an is limited in violation incorrect to of circumstances law application or was of the United States v. Sanchez, 146 F.3d 796, 797 (10th Cir. 1998) (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted); see United States v. Littlefield, 105 F.3d 527, 527 28 (9th Cir. 1997). Here, Ford s sentence was not imposed in violation of law, as his 180-month sentence is within the maximum sentence of life imprisonment. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) (West 1999 & Supp. 2012). § 846; 21 U.S.C.A. Additionally, Ford s sentence is not the result of an incorrect application of the 3 Guidelines, because a sentence imposed pursuant to a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement is contractual and not based upon the Guidelines. United States v. Cieslowski, 410 F.3d 353, 364 (7th Cir. 2005). Because § 3742(c) bars review of a sentence imposed pursuant to a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement and none of the exceptions apply, we dismiss the appeal of Ford s sentence. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and conclude that there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Otherwise, we grant appeal to We Ford s as the therefore affirm Government s sentence. Ford s motion Finally, and we conviction. dismiss deny the appellate counsel s motion to withdraw from representation at this time. This court requires that counsel inform Ford, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Ford requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move representation. in and materials legal before court for leave to withdraw from Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Ford. facts this We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately this and argument court presented would not in the 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.
