UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4809
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSE MORALES, a/k/a Joey,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:12-cr-00336-BO-4)
Submitted: July 18, 2014 Decided: July 29, 2014
Before KEENAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Mark E. Edwards, EDWARDS & TRENKLE, PLLC, Durham, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jose Morales pled guilty in accordance with a written
plea agreement to conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery, 18
U.S.C. § 1951(b) (2012), and possession of, and aiding and
abetting the possession of, a firearm in furtherance of a crime
of violence, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) (2012). Morales was
sentenced to eighty-seven months in prison for the conspiracy
and sixty months, consecutive, for the firearm offense. He now
appeals. His attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising one issue but stating
that there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Morales was
advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but did
not file such a brief. The United States moves to dismiss the
appeal based on a waiver-of-appellate-rights provision in the
plea agreement. Morales opposes the motion.
The appeal waiver did not apply to Morales’
convictions. Having reviewed the entire record, we hold that:
the district court substantially complied with Fed. R. Crim. P.
11(b)(1); there was a factual basis for the plea; the plea was
knowingly and voluntarily entered; and the plea agreement is
valid and enforceable. Accordingly, we affirm the convictions.
2
In the plea agreement, Morales waived his right to
appeal his sentence. * Upon review of the record, we conclude
that the waiver is valid and enforceable. We further find that
the issue Morales seeks to raise on appeal — whether the
district court should have ruled on his objections to the
presentence investigation report, which were withdrawn at
sentencing — falls within the scope of the waiver. Accordingly,
we grant the motion to dismiss the appeal insofar as it relates
to sentencing.
Pursuant to Anders, we have reviewed the entire record
for meritorious, nonwaivable issues and have found none. We
therefore affirm in part and dismiss in part. This court
requires that counsel inform Morales, in writing, of his right
to petition the Supreme Court of the United State for further
review. If Morales requests that such a petition be filed, but
counsel believes that the 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 of the motion was served on Morales. We dispense with
*
Morales waived his right “to appeal whatever sentence is
imposed, including any issues that relate to the establishment
of the advisory Guideline range, reserving only the right to
appeal from a sentence in excess of the applicable Guideline
range that is established at sentencing.” Morales was sentenced
within the properly calculated range.
3
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
4