UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4156

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

OMAR PHILLIPS,

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-00314-RBH-1)

Submitted: September 18, 2014 Decided: September 29, 2014

Before MOTZ, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam 

opinion.

Kimberly H. Albro, FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE, Columbia, 

South Carolina, for Appellant. Arthur Bradley Parham, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina; Stanley D. 

Ragsdale, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Pursuant to his written plea agreement, Omar Phillips 

pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute 28 grams or more of 

crack cocaine and 500 grams or more of cocaine, in violation of 

21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) (2012) and 21 U.S.C. § 846 

(2012). Phillips had negotiated an agreement pursuant to Fed. 

R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C), in which the parties stipulated that a 

188-month sentence was appropriate. After reviewing the 

presentence report, the court accepted the plea and imposed the 

stipulated sentence. This appeal timely followed.

Phillips’ counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders 

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), averring that there are no 

meritorious appellate issues but seeking review of the 

conviction and sentence. Counsel notes, in the alternative, 

that we lack jurisdiction to review Phillips’ sentence because 

it was the result of a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement. 

Although advised of his right to do so, Phillips 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 plea hearing for plain error. 

United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). 

To prevail under this standard, Phillips must establish that an 

error occurred, this error was plain, and that it affected his 
3

substantial rights. United States v. Massenburg, 564 F.3d 337, 

342–43 (4th Cir. 2009). Our review of the record confirms that 

the district court fully complied with the mandates of Fed. R. 

Crim. P. 11, ensuring that Phillips was competent to plead 

guilty and that his guilty plea was knowing, voluntary, and 

supported by an independent basis in fact. We therefore affirm 

Phillips’ conviction.

Further, we agree with counsel that we lack 

jurisdiction to review Phillips’ sentence. 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 

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). None of these exceptions apply here. 

Phillips’ sentence was less than the applicable statutory 

maximum of forty years’ imprisonment, see 21 U.S.C. 

§ 841(b)(1)(B), and was precisely what he and the Government 

agreed was appropriate. Moreover, the sentence was not imposed 

as a result of an incorrect application of the Sentencing 

Guidelines because it was based on the parties’ agreement — not 
4

on 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). 

Accordingly, review of Phillips’ sentence is precluded by 

§ 3742(c)(1).

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire 

record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We 

therefore affirm Phillips’ conviction and dismiss this appeal as 

to his sentence. We deny Phillips’ motion for the preparation 

of transcripts at Government expense. This court requires that 

counsel inform Phillips, in writing, of his right to petition 

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

Phillips 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 

Phillips. 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