US v. Joseph Aniagyei, No. 13-4901 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4901 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOSEPH ATTA ANIAGYEI, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge. (8:13-cr-00020-RWT-1) Submitted: September 25, 2014 Decided: September 29, 2014 Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bruce A. Johnson, Jr., LAW OFFICE OF BRUCE A. JOHNSON, JR., LLC, Bowie, Maryland, for Appellant. Paul Nitze, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Pursuant to his written plea agreement, Joseph Atta Aniagyei pled guilty to misusing a social security number, in violation of negotiated 42 an U.S.C. § 408(a)(7)(B) agreement pursuant (2012). to Fed. Aniagyei R. Crim. had P. 11(c)(1)(C), in which the parties stipulated that an elevenmonth sentence was appropriate. After reviewing the presentence report, the court accepted the plea and imposed the stipulated sentence. This appeal timely followed. Aniagyei s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), averring that there are no meritorious appellate issues Aniagyei s plea was not knowingly entered. but suggesting that Although advised of his right to do so, Aniagyei has not filed a supplemental brief. The Government has not filed a response. Finding no error, we affirm in part and dismiss in part. Where, as here, a defendant has not moved to withdraw his guilty plea, we review his Rule 11 hearing for plain error. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). The record reflects that the district court fully complied with the mandates of Rule 11, ensuring that Aniagyei s guilty plea was knowing and voluntary and supported by an independent basis in fact. We therefore affirm Aniagyei s conviction. 2 To the extent that this Anders appeal would require us to review Aniagyei s sentence, we note that it pursuant to a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement. was imposed As the Tenth Circuit has explained, the federal statute governing appellate review of a sentence, see 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a), (c) (2012), limits the circumstances under which a defendant may appeal a sentence to agreement which to he claims stipulated that his in a Rule sentence 11(c)(1)(C) was (1) plea imposed in violation of the law, (2) imposed as a result of an incorrect application of the Guidelines, or (3) is greater sentence set forth in the plea agreement. the United States v. Calderon, 428 F.3d 928, 932 (10th Cir. 2005). exceptions apply here. than None of these Aniagyei s sentence was less than the applicable statutory maximum of five years imprisonment, see 42 U.S.C. § 408(a) (2012), and was precisely Government agreed was appropriate. not imposed Sentencing agreement as a result Guidelines Guidelines. not on of because the an it district what he and the Moreover, the sentence was incorrect was application based court s on the calculation of the parties 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 Aniagyei s sentence is precluded by § 3742(c)(1). 3 In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Aniagyei s conviction and dismiss this appeal as to his sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Aniagyei, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. that a petition be filed, but counsel If Aniagyei requests 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 Aniagyei. 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.
