UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4718
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
EDUARDO RIVERA, a/k/a Mauricio Rodriguez, a/k/a Hector
Almodovar Valentin, a/k/a Daniel Eduardo Rivera,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District
Judge. (1:11-cr-00012-WDQ-1)
Submitted: April 19, 2012 Decided: April 24, 2012
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part, dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Joanna Silver, Staff
Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Gregory Robert
Bockin, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Eduardo Rivera pled guilty to one count of false
statement in applying for and using a passport, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 1542 (2006), and one count of aggravated identity
theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1), (c)(2), (c)(11)
(2006), and was sentenced to two years and one day of
imprisonment. Rivera noted a timely appeal. His counsel has
filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), conceding that there are no meritorious issues for
appeal, but questioning the voluntariness of Rivera’s guilty
plea. Rivera, informed of his right to file a pro se
supplemental brief, has not done so. The Government has moved
to dismiss the appeal in part pursuant to the waiver of
appellate review contained in the plea agreement. We grant the
motion for partial dismissal, affirm Rivera’s conviction, and
dismiss his appeal of issues within the scope of the appellate
waiver.
We review de novo the validity of a defendant’s waiver
of appellate rights. 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). To determine whether the waiver is knowing and
2
intelligent, we look to “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
omitted). We will enforce a valid waiver as to issues that are
within the scope of the waiver. Blick, 408 F.3d at 168.
Here, the plea agreement waived Rivera’s right to
appeal his conviction. Further, both parties agreed to waive
the right to appeal a sentence of twenty-four months and one
day, which they agreed was an appropriate sentence under Rule
11(c)(1)(C). See 18 U.S.C. § 3742(c) (2006) (imposing
limitations on appeals of sentences under Rule 11(e)(1)(C), now
11(c)(1)(C)). Our review of the record convinces us that, under
the totality of the circumstances, Rivera’s waiver was knowing
and intelligent. Rivera was represented by counsel and assisted
by an interpreter at the Rule 11 hearing; the district court
substantially complied with the requirements of Rule 11; and the
court thoroughly reviewed the waiver provisions with Rivera,
then thirty-four and with some college education. Therefore,
Rivera is bound by his appellate waiver.
Our review of the record convinces us that Rivera’s
guilty plea is knowing, voluntary, and supported by a sufficient
factual basis. See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116,
3
119-20 (4th Cir. 1991). In accordance with Anders, we have
thoroughly examined the entire record for any potentially
meritorious issues outside the scope of Rivera’s appeal waiver
and have found none. Therefore we affirm Rivera’s conviction
pursuant to his knowing and intelligent guilty plea and dismiss
the appeal as to any other issues.
This court requires that counsel inform Rivera, in
writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Rivera 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 Rivera. We dispense
with 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.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
4