UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4901

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JOSEPH ATTA ANIAGYEI,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge. 

(8:13-cr-00020-RWT-1)

Submitted: September 25, 2014 Decided: September 29, 2014

Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam 

opinion.

Bruce A. Johnson, Jr., LAW OFFICE OF BRUCE A. JOHNSON, JR., LLC, 

Bowie, Maryland, for Appellant. Paul Nitze, OFFICE OF THE 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Pursuant to his written plea agreement, Joseph Atta 

Aniagyei pled guilty to misusing a social security number, in 

violation of 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(7)(B) (2012). Aniagyei had 

negotiated an agreement pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 

11(c)(1)(C), in which the parties stipulated that an elevenmonth sentence was appropriate. After reviewing the presentence 

report, the court accepted the plea and imposed the stipulated 

sentence. This appeal timely followed.

Aniagyei’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), averring that there 

are no meritorious appellate issues but suggesting that 

Aniagyei’s plea was not knowingly entered. Although advised of 

his right to do so, Aniagyei 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 Rule 11 hearing for plain error. 

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

The record reflects that the district court fully complied with 

the mandates of Rule 11, ensuring that Aniagyei’s guilty plea 

was knowing and voluntary and supported by an independent basis 

in fact. We therefore affirm Aniagyei’s conviction.
3

To the extent that this Anders appeal would require us 

to review Aniagyei’s sentence, we note that it was imposed 

pursuant to a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement. 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. Aniagyei’s sentence was less than the 

applicable statutory maximum of five years’ imprisonment, see 42 

U.S.C. § 408(a) (2012), 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 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 Aniagyei’s sentence is 

precluded by § 3742(c)(1).
4

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire 

record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We 

therefore affirm Aniagyei’s conviction and dismiss this appeal 

as to his sentence. This court requires that counsel inform 

Aniagyei, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court 

of the United States for further review. If Aniagyei 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 Aniagyei. 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