PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-4322

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

BRUCE RALPH STURTZ,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Paul W. Grimm, Senior District Judge. (8:19-cr-00089-PWG-1)

Argued: January 27, 2023 Decided: June 14, 2023

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by published opinion. Judge Niemeyer wrote the opinion, in which Judge King and Judge Diaz joined.

ARGUED: Cullen Oakes Macbeth, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Leah Blom Grossi, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Erek L. Barron, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, Joseph R. Baldwin, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. USCA4 Appeal: 21-4322 Doc: 61 Filed: 06/14/2023 Pg: 2 of 13

NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge:

After Bruce Sturtz pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to possession of child

pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B) and (b)(2), the district court

sentenced him to 120 months’ imprisonment, the bottom of the advisory guidelines range.

That range was determined, in part, by the district court’s conclusion that Sturtz was subject

to the mandatory minimum sentence of 120 months’ imprisonment that is required by

§ 2252A(b)(2) when a defendant has a prior conviction for a qualifying sex offense. See

18 U.S.C. § 2252A(b)(2); see also U.S.S.G. § 5G1.1(c)(2) (providing that a guidelines

sentence may not be “less than any statutorily required minimum sentence”). The district

court found that Sturtz’s prior conviction under Maryland law for a sexual offense in the

third degree, see Md. Code Ann., Crim. Law § 3-307, qualified as a predicate for the

§ 2252A(b)(2) enhancement.

In his plea agreement, Sturtz reserved the right to challenge at the time of sentencing

whether his prior state-court conviction triggered the enhancement under § 2252A(b)(2).

But he waived the right to appeal his “conviction . . . on the ground that [his prior Maryland

conviction] does trigger [that] statutory mandatory minimum penalty.” Indeed, he waived

his right to appeal any issue relating to his conviction, as well as any issue relating to his

sentence, except for “the right to appeal any term of imprisonment to the extent that it

exceeds any sentence within the advisory guidelines range resulting from an offense level

of 30.”

In this appeal, Sturtz now seeks review of the district court’s ruling that his prior

Maryland conviction qualified as a predicate conviction under § 2252A(b)(2), which

2 USCA4 Appeal: 21-4322 Doc: 61 Filed: 06/14/2023 Pg: 3 of 13

triggered the 120-month mandatory minimum sentence. The government, however,

contends that Sturtz waived his right to appeal that issue in his plea agreement and requests

that we dismiss his appeal.

We agree with the government that the issue Sturtz seeks to present on appeal is

covered by his appeal waiver, and accordingly we dismiss this appeal.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document