US v. Robert Goins, No. 14-4071 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-4071 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. ROBERT EARL GOINS, a/k/a Robert Earl, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:12-cr-00669-RBH-3) Submitted: August 11, 2014 Decided: August 18, 2014 Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed in part, dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. John M. Ervin, III, Darlington, South Carolina, for Appellant. Arthur Bradley Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Pursuant Goins pled cocaine guilty and to a to conspiracy cocaine written base, plea to in agreement, distribute violation §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), 846 (2012). a Robert Earl quantity of 21 of U.S.C. Goins negotiated a Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C) agreement, in which the parties stipulated that a 132-month sentence was appropriate. The district court accepted the sentencing stipulation and sentenced Goins to 132 months in prison. Goins pursuant to appeals. Anders v. His attorney California, 386 has filed U.S. 738 a brief (1967), questioning whether the district court complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 and whether the sentence was reasonable. Goins has filed a pro se supplemental brief raising an additional issue. We affirm in part and dismiss in part. Our review of the transcript of Goins Rule 11 transcript reveals that the district court complied with the Rule, that the plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered, and that Goins conceded his guilt. Accordingly, we affirm his We lack jurisdiction to review Goins sentence. A conviction. defendant may appeal a sentence to which he stipulated in a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement only if his sentence was (1) imposed in violation of the law, (2) [was] imposed as a result of an 2 incorrect application of the Guidelines, or (3) is greater than the sentence set forth in the plea agreement. United States v. Calderon, 428 F.3d 928, 932 (10th Cir. 2005); see 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a), (c) (2012). None of the exceptions applies here. Goins sentence is below the statutory maximum of twenty years. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C). Further, the sentence was not imposed incorrect as a result of an application of the Guidelines because it was based on the parties agreement rather than on range. the district court s calculation of the Guidelines 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). Finally, 132 months is the exact sentence set forth in the plea agreement. Accordingly, we conclude that we may not review Goins stipulated sentence. * Pursuant to Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Goins conviction but dismiss the appeal of his sentence. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the * Because Goins sentence was based on the agreement and not the Guidelines, we decline to address his contention in the pro se brief that he was improperly determined to be a career offender. We note, however, that he had more than enough criminal history points to place him in criminal history category VI. 3 United States for further review. If Goins 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 his client. 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 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.
