UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4011
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MELCHOR CALDERON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. David A. Faber,
Senior District Judge. (7:12-cr-00037-FA-2)
Submitted: November 17, 2015 Decided: November 25, 2015
Before GREGORY, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
R. Clarke Speaks, SPEAKS LAW FIRM, Wilmington, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Melchor Calderon pled guilty in accordance with a written
plea agreement to: conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery, 18
U.S.C. § 1951 (2012); using and carrying a firearm during and in
relation to a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(B)(i)
(2012); conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to
distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 846
(2012); and kidnapping, 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a) (2012). Calderon
was sentenced to 252 months in prison. He now appeals. His
attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), claiming that the sentence is unreasonable but
stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal.
Calderon 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. Calderon opposes the motion.
We affirm in part and dismiss in part.
The appeal waiver did not apply to Calderon’s convictions.
Having reviewed the entire record, we hold that: the district
court substantially complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11; there was
a factual basis for the plea; and the plea was knowingly and
voluntarily entered. Accordingly, we affirm the convictions.
2
In the plea agreement, Calderon waived his right to appeal
his sentence. * Upon review of the record, we conclude, given the
totality of the circumstances, that the waiver is valid and
enforceable. We further find that the issue Calderon seeks to
raise on appeal — whether the sentence is reasonable — falls
within the scope of the waiver. See United States v. Blick, 408
F.3d 162, 168-69 (4th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, we grant the
motion to dismiss Calderon’s appeal of his sentence.
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 Calderon, in writing, of his right
to petition the Supreme Court of the United State for further
review. If Calderon 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 Calderon. We dispense with oral argument
* Calderon waived “all rights . . . 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
advisory Guideline range that was established at sentencing, . .
. excepting an appeal . . . based upon grounds of ineffective
assistance of counsel or prosecutorial misconduct not known to
the Defendant at the time of the . . . guilty plea.”
3
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