UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-4688

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

BYRON DAVID PAIGE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. 

(4:11-cr-02158-RBH-1)

Submitted: February 15, 2013 Decided: March 28, 2013

Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam 

opinion.

Louis H. Lang, CALLISON, TIGHE & ROBINSON, LLC, Columbia, South 

Carolina, for Appellant. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., 

Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Byron David Paige appeals the district court’s 

judgment imposing a sentence of 120 months in prison after he 

pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and 

ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2), 

924(e) (2006). The parties agreed that a sentence of 120 months 

in prison was the appropriate disposition of the case pursuant 

to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C), and the district court accepted 

the agreement. Paige’s attorney has filed a brief pursuant to 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting, in his 

opinion, that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but 

raising the issues of whether this Court has jurisdiction to 

consider his appeal of the stipulated sentence, and whether his 

sentence was imposed in violation of the law or as a result of 

an incorrect application of the Sentencing Guidelines. Paige 

was notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief 

but has not done so. We dismiss in part and affirm in part.

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a), (c) (2006), “[w]here 

a defendant agrees to and receives a specific sentence, he may 

appeal the sentence only if it 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). “Otherwise, the Court lacks jurisdiction 
3

over the appeal.” Id. Here, the district court imposed the 

specific sentence to which Paige agreed, and the sentence did 

not exceed the statutory maximum. Moreover, it could not have 

been imposed as a result of an incorrect application of the 

Guidelines because it was based on the parties’ Rule 11(c)(1)(C) 

agreement and not 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). We therefore dismiss Paige’s appeal to the 

extent that he challenges the stipulated sentence.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire 

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for 

appeal. We therefore dismiss the appeal in part and affirm the 

district court’s judgment. This court requires that counsel 

inform his or her client, in writing, of his or her right to 

petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further 

review. If the client 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 the client.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 
4

before this Court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED IN PART;

AFFIRMED IN PART