US v. Robert Edwards, No. 14-4127 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-4127 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ROBERT THOMAS EDWARDS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:13-cr-00318-RBH-1) Submitted: July 22, 2014 Before SHEDD and Circuit Judge. AGEE, Decided: Circuit Judges, and July 28, 2014 HAMILTON, Senior Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. William F. Nettles, IV, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Florence, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Robert Thomas Edwards appeals his conviction and the 188-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute and distribution of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) (2012). On appeal, Edwards counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious district grounds court fully for appeal complied but with questioning Federal Rule Procedure 11 in accepting Edwards guilty plea. whether of the Criminal Edwards was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but did not file one. Finding no meritorious grounds for appeal, we affirm Edwards conviction. To the extent that Edwards seeks to appeal his sentence, we dismiss that portion of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Our review district court Procedure 11 fully in of the plea complied conducting with the hearing Federal plea reveals Rule colloquy. * that of the Criminal See United States v. General, 278 F.3d 389, 393 (4th Cir. 2002) (providing standard of review). Thus, the court did not err in accepting as knowing and voluntary Edwards guilty plea. * We decline to sua sponte enforce Edwards waiver of appellate rights in the plea agreement. See United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir. 2005). 2 Counsel correctly observes in the Anders brief that we lack jurisdiction to consider an appeal of Edwards sentence because Edwards entered a guilty plea pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal governing Procedure appellate 11(c)(1)(C). review of a The federal sentence statute limits the circumstances under which a defendant may appeal a sentence to which claims he stipulated that violation of application in a the district law . of the . . Rule 11(c)(1)(C) court [or] imposed as sentencing plea a agreement the result sentence of guidelines. an 18 to in incorrect U.S.C. § 3742(a)(1)-(2), (c) (2006); United States v. Sanchez, 146 F.3d 796, 797 & n.1 (10th Cir. 1998) (concerning Rule 11(e)(1)(C), predecessor provision to 11(c)(1)(C)). Here, Edwards sentence was less than the applicable statutory maximum, see 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C), was not based upon the Sentencing Guidelines, and was the sentence for which he had bargained. See 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. ). Thus, review of his sentence is precluded by § 3742(c). In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Edwards conviction and dismiss the appeal to the extent that Edwards seeks review of his sentence. 3 This court requires that counsel inform Edwards, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Edwards requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, counsel may move representation. in this court for leave to withdraw from Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Edwards. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conclusions 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.