UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4246
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
OMAR FABIAN VALDES GUALTERO, a/k/a Gordo,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
Judge. (1:13-cr-00310-GBL-2)
Submitted: November 17, 2015 Decided: November 19, 2015
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Edwin S. Booth, SHUTTLEWORTH, RULOFF, SWAIN, HADDAD & MORECOCK,
P.C., Virginia Beach, Virginia; Maureen Leigh White, Richmond,
Virginia; for Appellant. Michael Phillip Ben’Ary, Assistant
United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia; Stacey Kyle Luck,
Special Counsel, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Omar Fabian Valdes Gualtero appeals his conviction and
sentence for aiding and abetting the murder of an
internationally protected person, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 2, 1116(a) (2012), and conspiracy to kidnap an
internationally protected person, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1201(c) (2012). On appeal, counsel for Valdes Gualtero filed
a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
asserting that there are no meritorious issues for appeal and
acknowledging Valdes Gualtero’s waiver of appellate rights but
questioning the application of a sentencing enhancement for
obstruction of justice. Valdes Gualtero has not filed a pro se
supplemental brief despite notice of his right to do so. The
Government has moved to dismiss the appeal as barred by the
appellate waiver included in Valdes Gualtero’s plea agreement.
Pursuant to a plea agreement, a defendant may waive his
appellate rights under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (2012). United States
v. Archie, 771 F.3d 217, 221 (4th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 135
S. Ct. 1579 (2015). A waiver will preclude an appeal of “a
specific issue if . . . the waiver is valid and the issue being
appealed is within the scope of the waiver.” Id. A defendant’s
waiver is valid if he agreed to it “knowingly and
intelligently.” United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 627
2
(4th Cir. 2010). Whether a defendant validly waived his right
to appeal is a question of law that we review de novo. United
States v. Copeland, 707 F.3d 522, 528 (4th Cir. 2013).
Upon review of the plea agreement and the transcript of the
Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing, we conclude that Valdes Gualtero
knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal his
conviction and sentence. The sentencing claim raised on appeal
clearly falls within the scope of this broad waiver. Therefore,
we grant the motion to dismiss and dismiss Valdes Gualtero’s
appeal. We have reviewed the entire record in accordance with
Anders and have found no meritorious issues for appeal outside
the scope of the waiver.
This court requires that counsel inform Valdes Gualtero, in
writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Valdes Gualtero 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 Valdes Gualtero.
3
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
4