UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4309

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LECO HARRELL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District 

Judge. (1:13-cr-00651-WDQ-2)

Submitted: November 20, 2014 Decided: November 24, 2014

Before KING and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam 

opinion.

Charles N. Curlett, Jr., LEVIN & CURLETT LLC, Baltimore, 

Maryland, for Appellant. Clinton Jacob Fuchs, Assistant United 

States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Pursuant to a written plea agreement, Leco Harrell 

pled guilty to two counts of using a communication facility to 

facilitate a felony drug offense, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 

§ 843(b) (2012). Harrell had negotiated an agreement pursuant 

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

that a sixty-month sentence was appropriate. The district court 

accepted the plea agreement and sentenced Harrell to sixty 

months in prison—thirty months on each count, to be served 

consecutively. This appeal timely followed.

Harrell’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders 

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

meritorious issues but seeking review of the conviction and 

sentence. Although advised of his right to do so, Harrell has 

not filed a pro se 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 in the 

district court 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, 

Harrell must establish “that an error occurred, that the error 

was plain, and that the error affected his substantial rights.” 

United States v. Heyer, 740 F.3d 284, 290 (4th Cir. 2014). Our 
3

review of the record confirms that the district court complied 

with the mandates of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, ensuring that Harrell 

was competent to plead guilty and that his guilty plea was 

knowing, voluntary, and supported by an independent basis in 

fact. We therefore affirm Harrell’s convictions.

Further, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction to 

review Harrell’s 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 stipulated sentence in a 

Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement to claims that his sentence was 

imposed in violation of the law or as a result of an erroneous

application of the Guidelines, or that it exceeds 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. Harrell’s sentence on each count was less than the 

applicable statutory maximum of four years. See 21 U.S.C. 

§ 843(d)(1) (2012). 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). Finally, sixty 

months is the exact sentence set forth in the plea agreement. 
4

Accordingly, review of Harrell’s 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 Harrell’s convictions and dismiss this appeal 

as to his sentence. This court requires that counsel inform 

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

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