UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4394
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
MOHAMMAD HAMMED AHMED, a/k/a MO $, a/k/a MO Money,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior
District Judge. (5:10-cr-00113-BR-3)
Submitted: September 29, 2011 Decided: October 4, 2011
Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Thomas B. Murphy, Assistant
United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Mohammad Hammed Ahmed appeals the criminal judgment
entered following his guilty plea, pursuant to a written plea
agreement, to conspiracy to commit wire fraud and mail fraud, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349 (2006). On appeal, counsel filed
a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
asserting that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but
questioning whether the district court’s sentence was
reasonable. Ahmed was informed of his right to file a pro se
supplemental brief, but he has not done so. The Government has
filed a motion to dismiss the appeal based on the appellate
waiver provision in Ahmed’s plea agreement. Ahmed opposes the
motion, arguing that the motion is premature. We affirm in part
and dismiss in part.
We review a defendant’s waiver of appellate rights de
novo. United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir.
2005). “A defendant may waive his right to appeal if that
waiver is the result of a knowing and intelligent decision to
forgo the right to appeal.” United States v. Amaya-Portillo,
423 F.3d 427, 430 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks
omitted); see United States v. General, 278 F.3d 389, 400 (4th
Cir. 2002) (providing standard). Generally, if the district
court fully questions the defendant about the waiver during the
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 plea colloquy, the waiver
2
is valid and enforceable. United States v. Johnson, 410 F.3d
137, 151 (4th Cir. 2005). We will enforce a valid waiver so
long as “the issue being appealed is within the scope of the
waiver.” Blick, 408 F.3d at 168.
Our review of the record leads us to conclude that
Ahmed’s waiver of appellate rights was knowing and intelligent.
Turning to the scope of the waiver, we conclude that the
sentencing issue Ahmed raises on appeal falls within the scope
of the appellate waiver provision. Ahmed was sentenced to
twenty-seven months’ imprisonment, within the advisory
Guidelines range established at sentencing. Thus, we grant in
part the Government’s motion to dismiss and dismiss this portion
of the appeal.
The waiver provision, however, does not preclude our
review of the guilty plea or conviction pursuant to Anders. In
accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and
have found no unwaived and potentially meritorious issues for
review. We therefore deny in part the Government’s motion to
dismiss and affirm Ahmed’s conviction.
This court requires that counsel inform Ahmed, in
writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Ahmed requests that a
petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition
would be frivolous, counsel may move in this court for leave to
3
withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that
a copy thereof was served on Ahmed. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal conclusions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
4