UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4679
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOEL DOMINGUEZ-ARMAS,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 13-4681
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOEL DOMINGUEZ-ARMAS,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior
District Judge. (5:12-cr-00362-BR-1; 5:13-cr-00151-BR-1)
Submitted: May 19, 2014 Decided: May 28, 2014
Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States
Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Joel Dominguez-Armas pled guilty, pursuant to a
written plea agreement, to possession of a firearm by an illegal
alien, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5) (2012), and illegal reentry, 8
U.S.C. § 1326(a) (2012). On appeal, Dominguez-Armas’ counsel
filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), asserting that there are no meritorious grounds for
appeal but questioning whether the district court erred by
cross-referencing the firearms offense to the Guidelines
governing robbery. Although advised of his right to file a
supplemental pro se brief, Dominguez-Armas has not done so. The
United States seeks to dismiss the appeal based on the appellate
waiver provision in the plea agreement.
We review de novo a defendant’s waiver of appellate
rights. United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir.
2005). “A defendant may waive his right to appeal if that
waiver is the result of a knowing and intelligent decision to
forgo the right to appeal.” United States v. Amaya–Portillo,
423 F.3d 427, 430 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks
omitted). Generally, if the district court fully questions the
defendant about the waiver during the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 plea
colloquy, the waiver is valid and enforceable. United States v.
Johnson, 410 F.3d 137, 151 (4th Cir. 2005). We will enforce a
3
valid waiver so long as “the issue being appealed is within the
scope of the waiver.” Blick, 408 F.3d at 168.
Our review of the record leads us to conclude that
Dominguez-Armas’ waiver of appellate rights was knowing and
intelligent. Because the only issue he raises on appeal falls
within the scope of the waiver, we grant the Government’s motion
to dismiss Dominguez-Armas’ appeal as to his sentence and
dismiss this portion of the appeal.
Although the waiver provision in the plea agreement
precludes our review of the sentence, the waiver does not
preclude our review of any errors in Dominguez-Armas’ conviction
that may be revealed pursuant to the review required by Anders.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record
and have found no meritorious issues that are outside the scope
of the appeal waiver. We therefore affirm the district court’s
judgment as to all issues not encompassed by Dominguez-Armas’
valid waiver of his right to appeal.
This court requires that counsel inform Dominguez-
Armas, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of
the United States for further review. If Dominguez-Armas
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 Dominguez-
4
Armas. 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
5