US v. Anthony Jennings, No. 13-4127 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4127 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. ANTHONY JOSEPH JENNINGS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District Judge. (4:11-cr-02078-TLW-1) Submitted: September 24, 2013 Before NIEMEYER and Senior Circuit Judge. THACKER, Decided: Circuit September 26, 2013 Judges, and HAMILTON, Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bradley M. Kirkland, BRADLEY M. KIRKLAND, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. William E. Day, II, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Anthony Joseph robbery, 18 U.S.C. carrying a firearm §§ Jennings 2113(a), during and pled (d) in guilty (2006), relation violence, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) (2006). to armed and to a using crime bank and of Jennings written plea agreement included a Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) stipulated sentencing range of 87 to 108 months imprisonment. The district court imposed a 105-month sentence. Jennings attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but asking this court to consider whether the district court adequately complied with Rule 11 in accepting Jennings guilty plea and whether Jennings sentence is reasonable. Although advised of his right to do so, Jennings has a not filed pro se supplemental declined to file a response. brief. The Government We affirm in part and dismiss in part. Because Jennings did not move to withdraw his guilty plea in the district court, the adequacy of the Rule 11 hearing The Government has not sought enforcement of the waiver of appellate rights in the plea agreement. See United States v. Poindexter, 492 F.3d 263, 271 (4th Cir. 2007) (recognizing that the Government may file a responsive brief raising the appellate waiver issue or do nothing and allow this court to perform the Anders review). 2 is reviewed for plain error only. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 524 26 (4th Cir. 2002). To demonstrate plain error, a defendant must show: (1) there was error; (2) the error was plain; and (3) the error affected his substantial rights. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993). In the guilty plea context, a defendant meets his burden to establish that a plain error affected his substantial rights by showing a reasonable probability district that he court s would Rule not 11 have pled guilty omissions. but Massenburg, 564 F.3d 337, 343 (4th Cir. 2009). the States United for v. Our thorough review of the record reveals that the district court adequately complied with Rule 11 in conducting the guilty plea colloquy. Thus, we conclude that Jennings guilty plea was knowing and voluntary and supported by an independent basis in fact, and we find no plain error in the district court s acceptance of his guilty plea. Next, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction to review Jennings sentence. The federal statute governing appellate review of a sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 3742(c) (2006), 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 the sentence was imposed in violation of law or as a result of an incorrect application of the Sentencing Guidelines. 18 U.S.C. §§ 3742(a)(1)-(2), (c)(1) (2006); United States v. 3 Sanchez, 146 F.3d 796, 797 & n.1 (10th Cir. 1998) (concerning Rule 11(c)(1)(C) s Because the predecessor sentence imposed provision, by the Rule district 11(e)(1)(C)). court neither violated the law nor resulted from an incorrect application of the Guidelines, United States v. Cieslowski, 410 F.3d 353, 364 (7th Cir. 2005) ( A sentence imposed under a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea arises directly from the agreement itself, not from the Guidelines. ), our review of Jennings sentence is precluded by § 3742(c). In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Jennings convictions and dismiss his appeal to the extent he challenges his sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Jennings in writing of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Jennings 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. Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Jennings. Finally, we dispense with oral argument because the facts legal and materials before 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.
