UNPUBLISHED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 Decided: July 28, 2014

Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

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 grounds for appeal but questioning whether the 

district court fully complied with Federal Rule of Criminal 

Procedure 11 in accepting Edwards’ guilty plea. 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 of the plea hearing reveals that the 

district court fully complied with Federal Rule of Criminal 

Procedure 11 in conducting the plea colloquy.* 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). 
3

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 Procedure 11(c)(1)(C). The federal statute 

governing appellate review of a sentence 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 the district court imposed the sentence “in 

violation of law . . . [or] as a result of an incorrect 

application of the sentencing guidelines.” 18 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. This 
4

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 in this court for leave to withdraw from 

representation. 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