589 F. App'x 130
4th Cir.
2014

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent-Appellee, v. [redacted] JACKSON, Petitioner-Appellant.

No. 14-6352.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Decided: Dec. 30, 2014.

130

complied with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 in conducting the plea colloquy and committed no error warranting correction on plain error review.* See United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 532 (4th Cir.2002). Thus, the court did not err in accepting Jackson‘s knowing and voluntary guilty plea.

Turning to the appeal of Jackson‘s sentence, counsel correctly observes in the Anders brief that we lack jurisdiction to consider such an appeal because Jackson 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) (2012); see United States v. Calderon, 428 F.3d 928, 932 (10th Cir.2005). Here, Jackson‘s 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 bargained. Thus, review of his sentence is precluded by § 3742(c).

In accordance with 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 the appeal to the extent that he seeks review of his sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Jackson, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Jackson 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 Jackson. 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.

William Edward ReBROOK, III, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 14-6352.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Sept. 26, 2014. Decided: Dec. 30, 2014.

Lonnie Carl Simmons, Ditrapano, Barrett, Dipiero, McGinley & Simmons PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. R. Booth Goodwin II, United States Attorney, Larry R. Ellis, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

William Edward ReBrook, III, appeals the district court‘s order, accepting the magistrate judge‘s recommendation (except as otherwise stated), denying his petition for a writ of error coram nobis, and dismissing the action. In his writ, ReBrook alleges that his conviction for wire fraud, under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343, 1346 (2012), is no longer valid in light of Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358, 130 S.Ct. 2896, 177 L.Ed.2d 619 (2010). We note that a writ of error coram nobis is a remedy of last resort, United States v. Mandel, 862 F.2d 1067, 1075 (4th Cir.1988), and that it is narrowly limited to extraordinary cases presenting circumstances compelling its use to achieve justice. United States v. Denedo, 556 U.S. 904, 129 S.Ct. 2213, 173 L.Ed.2d 1235 (2009). We find no abuse of discretion in the district court‘s denial of the writ, United States v. Akinsade, 686 F.3d 248, 251-52 (4th Cir.2012) (providing review standard), and accordingly affirm for the reasons stated by the district court that the conviction is valid under 18 U.S.C. § 1343 under a property fraud theory. ReBrook v. United States, No. 2:10-cv-01009, 2014 WL 555283 (S.D.W.Va. Feb. 11, 2014). 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.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ericka Ciara McCLARIN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 14-7177.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 16, 2014. Decided: Dec. 30, 2014.

Ericka Ciara McClarin, Appellant Pro Se. Ethan A. Ontjes, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Ericka Ciara McClarin appeals the district court‘s text order denying her motion to correct a clerical error in her criminal

Notes

*
We decline to sua sponte enforce Jackson‘s waiver of appellate rights in the plea agreement. See United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir.2005).