UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4437
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ISMAIL S. OMARA, a/k/a Omara S. Ismail,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh,
District Judge. (3:12-cr-00008-GMG-DJJ-1)
Submitted: October 25, 2013 Decided: November 6, 2013
Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Nicholas J. Compton, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Kristen
M. Leddy, Research and Writing Specialist, Martinsburg, West
Virginia, for Appellant. John Castle Parr, Assistant United
States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ismail Omara seeks to appeal his sentence for bank
fraud. See 18 U.S.C. § 1344 (2006). Omara pled guilty pursuant
to a written plea agreement and was sentenced to time served and
five years of supervised release. The district court ordered
Omara to pay restitution in the amount of $25,152.32. On
appeal, counsel for Omara filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there are no
meritorious issues for appeal but questioning the reasonableness
of the term of supervised release. Omara filed a pro se
supplemental brief echoing the claim raised by counsel. The
Government has moved to dismiss the appeal as barred by Omara’s
waiver of the right to appeal included in the plea agreement.
We affirm in part and dismiss in part.
Our review of the record leads us to conclude that
Omara knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal his
sentence. See United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168-69 (4th
Cir. 2005). The issue raised by Omara and by his counsel falls
within the scope of that waiver. Accordingly, because Omara
knowingly and voluntarily entered into the waiver and the
Government now seeks to enforce it, we grant the motion to
dismiss in part and dismiss all sentencing issues that a
defendant may lawfully waive. As to any remaining issues, we
have reviewed the entire record in accordance with Anders and
2
have found no unwaived meritorious issues. We therefore affirm
the district court’s judgment as to all issues not encompassed
by Omara’s valid waiver of appellate rights.
This Court requires that counsel inform Omara, in
writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Omara 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 Omara. 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.
DISMISSED IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART
3