UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4046
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSE RIVERA MEJIA, a/k/a Jose Rivera, a/k/a Jose Angel
Rivera Mejia, a/k/a Jose Rivera Mejia, a/k/a Jose Simon
Rivera Mejia, a/k/a Jose Simon Rivera,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District
Judge. (8:09-cr-00357-AW-1)
Submitted: September 8, 2011 Decided: September 30, 2011
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ron Earnest, LAW OFFICE OF RON EARNEST, Takoma Park, Maryland,
for Appellant. Robert K. Hur, Assistant United States Attorney,
Mara Zusman Greenberg, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jose Rivera Mejia pleaded guilty, pursuant to a
written plea agreement, to illegal reentry into the United
States by an alien who previously had been deported following a
conviction for an aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C.
§ 1326(a), (b)(2) (2006). The district court sentenced Mejia to
forty-one months of imprisonment, and Mejia now appeals.
Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), finding no meritorious grounds
for appeal but questioning the reasonableness of Mejia’s
sentence. Counsel concedes, however, that Mejia’s plea
agreement included a waiver-of-appellate-rights provision.
Despite being informed of his right to do so, Mejia has not
filed a pro se supplemental brief.
The Government has filed a motion to dismiss the
appeal based on the appellate waiver in the plea agreement,
which Mejia does not dispute. For the reasons that follow, we
grant the Government’s motion and dismiss the appeal.
Pursuant to a plea agreement, a defendant may waive
his appellate rights under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (2006). United
States v. Wiggins, 905 F.2d 51, 53 (4th Cir. 1990). This court
reviews the validity of an appellate waiver de novo, and will
enforce the waiver if it is valid and the issue on appeal is
2
within the scope of the waiver. United States v. Blick, 408
F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir. 2005).
An appeal waiver is valid if the defendant knowingly
and intelligently agreed to the waiver. Id. at 169. To
determine whether a waiver is knowing and intelligent, this
court examines “the totality of the circumstances, including the
experience and conduct of the accused, as well as the accused’s
educational background and familiarity with the terms of the
plea agreement.” United States v. General, 278 F.3d 389, 400
(4th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that Mejia
knowingly and intelligently entered into the plea agreement and
waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence.
We have examined the entire record in accordance with
the requirements of Anders and have found no meritorious issues
for appeal. Accordingly, we grant the Government’s motion to
dismiss the appeal.
This court requires that counsel inform Mejia, in
writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Mejia 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 Mejia. We dispense with
3
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
4