UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4530

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

BILLY DEONANDRE HODGE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. 

(4:08-cr-01082-TLW-1)

Submitted: February 1, 2011 Decided: March 11, 2011

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam 

opinion.

Kathy Price Elmore, ORR ELMORE & ERVIN, LLC, Florence, South 

Carolina, for Appellant. Carrie Ann Fisher, Assistant United 

States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina; Rose Mary Sheppard 

Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Billy Deonandre Hodge pled guilty to armed robbery in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) (2006) and use of a firearm in 

the commission of a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 924(c)(1)(A) (2006). Hodge’s written plea agreement included 

a Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) stipulated 

sentence of 240 months’ imprisonment. The district court 

imposed the stipulated sentence. Hodge then filed this timely 

appeal.

Hodge’s attorney has filed a brief in accordance with 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning the 

adequacy of Hodge’s Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 

hearing. A letter filed by Hodge was docketed as an untimely 

pro se supplemental brief in which he asserts that counsel was 

ineffective for misleading him into signing the plea agreement 

for a sentence over his guideline range. Because we find no 

meritorious grounds for appeal, we affirm.

Hodge questions whether the district court adequately 

advised him during his Rule 11 hearing. Prior to accepting a 

guilty plea, a district court must conduct a plea colloquy in 

which it informs the defendant of, and determines that the 

defendant comprehends, the nature of the charge to which he is 

pleading guilty, any mandatory minimum penalty, the maximum 

possible penalty he faces, and the rights he is relinquishing by 
3

pleading guilty. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b); United States v. 

DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116 (4th Cir. 1991). “In reviewing the 

adequacy of compliance with Rule 11, this Court should accord 

deference to the trial court’s decision as to how best to 

conduct the mandated colloquy with the defendant.” DeFusco, 949 

F.2d at 116.

We have thoroughly reviewed the record in this case 

and conclude that the district court complied with the mandates 

of Rule 11 in accepting Hodge’s guilty plea. Thus, we hold that 

the record affirmatively shows there was a factual basis for 

Hodge’s plea, Hodge understood the constitutional rights he 

waived in pleading guilty, and Hodge’s guilty plea was knowing 

and voluntary. Additionally, we have reviewed Hodge’s claims of 

ineffective assistance of counsel and find that the record does 

not conclusively establish ineffective assistance. Accordingly, 

the ineffective assistance claims are not cognizable on direct 

appeal. United States v. Richardson, 195 F.3d 192, 198 (4th 

Cir. 1999).

Next, we conclude we lack jurisdiction to review 

Hodge’s sentence. The federal statute governing appellate 

review of a sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 3742(c) (2006), 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 imposed in violation of law [or] 
4

was imposed as a result of an incorrect application of the 

sentencing guidelines [.]” United States v. Sanchez, 146 F.3d 

796, 797 & n.1 (10th Cir. 1998); United States v. Littlefield, 

105 F.3d 527, 527-28 (9th Cir. 1997). Here, Hodge’s sentence 

did not exceed the applicable statutory maximum and was the 

precise sentence he had bargained for with the Government. 

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 Hodge’s conviction and dismiss his appeal to 

the extent he challenges his sentence. This court requires that 

counsel inform Hodge in writing of the right to petition the 

Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Hodge 

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 Hodge. 

Finally, we deny Hodge’s motion to appoint new counsel and 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART;

DISMISSED IN PART