UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4658

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ANYA LEE JACKSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

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

(4:07-cr-00902-TLW-1)

Submitted: April 29, 2011 Decided: May 16, 2011

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam

opinion.

Steven M. Hisker, HISKER LAW FIRM, PC, Duncan, South Carolina, 

for Appellant. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Rose Mary 

Sheppard Parham, Assistant United States Attorneys, Florence, 

South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Anya Lee Jackson pled 

guilty to possession of ammunition by a convicted felon, in 

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

(2006). The parties stipulated in the plea agreement to a 180-

month sentence. See

On appeal, Jackson’s counsel has filed a brief 

pursuant to 

Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C). The court 

agreed to sentence Jackson to the stipulated term.

Anders v. California

Because Jackson did not move in the district court to 

withdraw her guilty plea, we review the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 

hearing for plain error. 

, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating

that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning 

whether the district court complied with Rule 11 of the Federal 

Rules of Criminal Procedure in accepting Jackson’s guilty plea. 

Jackson was advised of her right to file a pro se supplemental 

brief, but she did not file one.

United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 

517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). “To establish plain error, [Jackson] 

must show that an error occurred, that the error was plain, and 

that the error affected h[er] substantial rights.” United 

States v. Muhammad, 478 F.3d 247, 249 (4th Cir. 2007). Our 

review of the record leads us to conclude that the district 

court substantially complied with Rule 11 and that Jackson’s 

guilty plea was knowing and voluntary. 
3

With regard to Jackson’s sentence, we do not have 

jurisdiction over this portion of the appeal. Under 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3742(c) (2006), a defendant’s appeal of a sentence to which 

she stipulated in a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement is limited 

to circumstances where her “sentence was imposed in violation of 

law [or] was imposed as a result of an incorrect application of 

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

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

Here, Jackson’s sentence was not imposed in violation 

of law. Her 180-month sentence is well within the maximum 

sentence of life imprisonment provided by 18 U.S.C. 

§§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2), 924(e). Additionally, her sentence is 

not the result of an incorrect application of the Guidelines. A 

sentence imposed pursuant to a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement 

is contractual and not based upon the Guidelines. 

, 105 

F.3d 527, 527-28 (9th Cir. 1997).

United States 

v. Cieslowski, 410 F.3d 353, 364 (7th Cir. 2005); Littlefield

In accordance with 

, 

105 F.3d at 528. Because § 3742(c) bars review of a sentence 

imposed pursuant to a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement and none 

of the exceptions applies, we dismiss the appeal of Jackson’s 

sentence.

Anders, we have reviewed the entire 

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for 

appeal. We therefore affirm Jackson’s conviction and dismiss 
4

the appeal of her sentence. This court requires that counsel 

inform his client, in writing, of the 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 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED IN PART;

DISMISSED IN PART