UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4928
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
YARLETTA SANTIAGO, a/k/a Yarletta Beckwith,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey,
Chief District Judge. (3:08-cr-00079-JPB-DJJ-2)
Submitted: June 11, 2010 Decided: July 7, 2010
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
S. Andrew Arnold, ARNOLD, CESARE & BAILEY, PLLC, Shepherdstown,
West Virginia, for Appellant. Betsy C. Jividen, Acting United
States Attorney, Thomas O. Mucklow, Assistant United States
Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Yarletta Santiago pled guilty to aiding and abetting
the distribution of approximately 6.9 grams of cocaine, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2006), and 18 U.S.C. § 2
(2006). The district court sentenced her to thirty-six months
of imprisonment, a variance of twenty-one months below the
advisory guidelines range. On appeal, counsel has filed an
Anders1 brief, stating that there are no meritorious issues for
appeal but questioning whether the sentence is reasonable.
Santiago filed a pro se supplemental brief challenging her
sentence. The Government seeks dismissal of the appeal based
upon Santiago’s waiver of appellate rights in the plea
agreement. We affirm in part and dismiss in part.
A defendant may waive the right to appeal if that
waiver is knowing and intelligent. United States v. Manigan,
592 F.3d 621, 627 (4th Cir. 2010). Generally, if the district
court fully questions a defendant regarding the waiver of her
right to appeal during the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 colloquy, the
waiver is both valid and enforceable. United States v. General,
278 F.3d 389, 400-01 (4th Cir. 2002); United States v. Johnson,
410 F.3d 137, 151 (4th Cir. 2005). The question of whether a
1
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
2
defendant validly waived her right to appeal is a question of
law that this court reviews de novo. Manigan, 592 F.3d at 626.
Our review of the record leads us to conclude that
Santiago knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to appeal
her sentence. Moreover, the sentencing issue raised on appeal
falls within the scope of the waiver provision in the plea
agreement. We therefore dismiss this portion of the appeal.
Although the sentencing claim is precluded by the
waiver, the waiver does not preclude our Anders review of any
errors in Santiago’s conviction. Our review of the transcript
of the plea colloquy convinces us that the magistrate judge2 and
the district court fully complied with the mandates of Rule 11
in accepting Santiago’s guilty plea. The court ensured that the
plea was entered knowingly and voluntarily and was supported by
an independent factual basis. See United States v. DeFusco, 949
F.2d 114, 116, 119-20 (4th Cir. 1991). Thus, we affirm the
conviction.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues not
covered by the waiver. We therefore affirm Santiago’s
conviction and dismiss the appeal of her sentence. This court
2
Santiago consented to proceeding with her plea before a
magistrate judge.
3
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
4