US v. Dylan Johnson, No. 14-4115 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-4115 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DYLAN SHANE JOHNSON, Defendant -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-4) Submitted: July 18, 2014 Decided: July 24, 2014 Before WILKINSON and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edye U. Moran, MORAN LAW OFFICES, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Arthur Bradley Parham, Esq., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Pursuant Johnson pled to guilty a written to plea conspiracy agreement, distribute to Dylan Shane cocaine and cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846 (2012). agreement, sentence Johnson negotiated a Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C) in was which the parties appropriate. The stipulated district that court a 108-month accepted the sentencing stipulation and sentenced Johnson to 108 months in prison. Johnson 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 but conceding that there was full compliance with the Rule. Counsel also questions whether this Court has jurisdiction to review Johnson s sentence and concludes that it does not. Johnson was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not filed such a brief. We affirm in part and dismiss in part. Our review of the transcript of Johnson s Rule 11 transcript reveals that the district court complied with the Rule, Johnson the plea conceded was his knowingly and guilt. voluntarily Accordingly, conviction. 2 we entered, and affirm his We jurisdiction governing agree to with counsel review appellate for Johnson s review of Johnson that sentence. a we The sentence lack statute 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 his sentence was (1) imposed in violation of the law, (2) imposed as a result of an 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). the exceptions applies here. statutory maximum § 841(b)(1)(A). result of because district was court s Johnson s sentence is below the life Further, incorrect it of the in on the calculation prison. sentence application based None of of the parties of the was See not 21 imposed Sentencing as a Guidelines agreement not Guidelines U.S.C. on range. 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). Finally, 108 months is the exact sentence set forth in the plea agreement. Accordingly, we conclude that review of Johnson s stipulated sentence is precluded. Pursuant to Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Johnson s conviction but dismiss the appeal of 3 his sentence. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. that a petition be filed, but counsel If Johnson 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 his client. 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.
