United States v. Reynaldo Calderon

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4419

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

REYNALDO CALDERON, a/k/a Ray,

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-1)

Submitted: April 18, 2016 Decided: April 26, 2016

Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed in part, dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Reynaldo 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); kidnapping resulting in death, 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a)

(2012); and kidnapping, 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a) (2012). Calderon

was sentenced to life in prison and a consecutive term of 120

months. He now appeals. His attorney has filed a brief

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), claiming

that the district court erred in not granting the Government’s

motion for a departure based on substantial assistance 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

2
a factual basis for the plea; and the plea was knowingly and

voluntarily entered. Accordingly, we affirm the convictions.

In the plea agreement, Calderon waived his right to appeal

his sentence, with certain exceptions not applicable here. 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 sentencing issue Calderon seeks to raise

on appeal 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 States 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

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented

3
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART