US v. Cephus Mitchell, No. 13-4589 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4589 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CEPHUS MITCHELL, a/k/a C 4, a/k/a Lil C, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior District Judge. (2:11-cr-00472-PMD-18) Submitted: August 21, 2014 Decided: August 25, 2014 Before SHEDD, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed in part, dismissed in part, and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jessica Salvini, SALVINI & BENNETT, LLC, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Sean Kittrell, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Cephus Rule of Mitchell Criminal conspiring to pled possess pursuant 11(c)(1)(C) Procedure guilty, plea with intent to to a Federal agreement, distribute and to: to distribute a quantity of cocaine and cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(C), 846 (2012), and conspiring to use or maintain various places for the purpose of manufacturing and distributing controlled substances, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(1) (2012) (Count One); using and carrying a firearm during and in furtherance of, relation a drug to, and possessing trafficking crime a and firearm in crime of a violence, and aiding and abetting the same, during which the firearm was discharged, §§ 924(c)(1)(A)(iii), 2 in violation (2012) (Count of Eleven); 18 and U.S.C. using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to, and possessing a firearm in furtherance of, a crime of violence and a drug trafficking crime, causing the death of a person through the use of the firearm in such a manner to constitute murder, and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1), 924(j)(1), 2 (2012) (Count Thirteen). The district court imposed a total term of 396 months imprisonment, the top of the 240 to 396 month range agreement. to which the parties Mitchell appealed. 2 stipulated in the plea Counsel has California, 386 meritorious grounds court erred in U.S. filed 738 for a brief (1967), appeal, imposing pursuant stating but Mitchell s to that Anders there questioning sentence. are v. no whether the Mitchell was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not filed one. The Government declined to file a brief. Subject to narrow exceptions, a defendant who agrees to and receives a particular sentence 11(c)(1)(C) may not appeal that sentence. pursuant to Rule 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) (2012); United States v. Calderon, 428 F.3d 928, 932 (10th Cir. 2005). In this case, the district court imposed a sentence within the stipulated range and the sentence did not exceed the statutory maximum. Moreover, the sentence was not imposed as a result of an incorrect application of the Sentencing Guidelines because it was based on the parties agreement and not on the district court s calculation of the Guidelines. 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). Review of Mitchell s sentence is thus precluded by 18 U.S.C. § 3742(c). In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court with respect to Mitchell s convictions and we dismiss the appeal with respect to Mitchell s sentence. We remand to the district court 3 with instructions to correct the judgment, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 36, to reflect that the statutes of conviction for Count One are 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(C), 846, 856(a)(1), for Count Eleven are 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A)(iii), 2, and for Count Thirteen are 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1), (j)(1), 2. This court requires that counsel inform Mitchell, in writing, of the right to petition United States for further review. the Supreme Court of the If Mitchell 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 Mitchell. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART, AND REMANDED 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.
