UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4800
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSE YUNIDES MOLINA MENDOZA, a/k/a Jose Mendoza, a/k/a Jose
Y. Mendoza,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Paul W. Grimm, District Judge. (8:15-
cr-00191-PWG-1)
Submitted: August 29, 2016 Decided: September 14, 2016
Before FLOYD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Marc Gregory Hall, LAW OFFICES OF MARC G. HALL, P.C., Greenbelt,
Maryland, for Appellant. Sumon Srinivas Dantiki, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Francesca Anne Liquori, Special
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jose Yunides Molina Mendoza (Mendoza) pleaded guilty,
pursuant to a written plea agreement, to reentry of an alien
deported after conviction for an aggravated felony, in violation
of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2012). The district court
calculated Mendoza’s advisory Guidelines range under the U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines Manual at 57 to 71 months’ imprisonment
and sentenced Mendoza to 46 months’ imprisonment. On appeal,
Mendoza’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no
meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether the
district court abused its discretion in imposing the 46-month
sentence. The Government has moved to dismiss the appeal of
Mendoza’s sentence based on the waiver of appellate rights
included in the plea agreement. Mendoza was informed of his
right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not done
so. We dismiss in part and affirm in part.
A defendant may waive the right to appeal if that waiver is
knowing and intelligent. United States v. Poindexter, 492 F.3d
263, 270 (4th Cir. 2007). Generally, if the district court
fully questions a defendant regarding the waiver of his right to
appeal during a plea colloquy performed in accordance with Fed.
R. Crim. P. 11, the waiver is both valid and enforceable.
2
United States v. Johnson, 410 F.3d 137, 151 (4th Cir. 2005).
Whether a defendant validly waived his right to appeal is a
question of law that this court reviews de novo. United
States v. Thornsbury, 670 F.3d 532, 537 (4th Cir. 2012).
Our review of the record leads us to conclude that Mendoza
knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to appeal his
46-month sentence. We therefore grant the Government’s motion
to dismiss and dismiss the appeal of Mendoza’s sentence.
The Government does not seek to enforce the appeal waiver
with respect to Mendoza’s conviction, and we therefore may
“perform the required Anders review” with respect to that
conviction. See Poindexter, 492 F.3d at 271. In accordance
with Anders, we have reviewed the remainder of the record in
this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm Mendoza’s conviction.
This court requires that counsel inform Mendoza, in
writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Mendoza 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 Mendoza.
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 IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART
4