UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-5199
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ARSEN BEDZHANYAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver,
Jr., District Judge. (2:11-cr-00193-1)
Submitted: May 22, 2012 Decided: June 12, 2012
Before DUNCAN, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne,
Appellate Counsel, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant.
Meredith George Thomas, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Pursuant to a written plea agreement, Arsen Bedzhanyan
pled guilty to a single count of aiding and abetting aggravated
identity theft, violating 18 U.S.C. § 1028A (2006), and was
sentenced to eighteen months’ imprisonment. Counsel for
Bedzhanyan has now submitted a brief in accordance with
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that he has
divined no meritorious grounds for appeal but inquiring whether
Bedzhanyan’s sentence is unreasonable. The Government has moved
to dismiss the appeal of Bedzhanyan’s sentence based on his
waiver of appellate rights. Bedzhanyan has declined to file a
pro se supplemental brief. We have reviewed the record, and we
dismiss in part and affirm in part.
A criminal defendant may, in a valid plea agreement,
waive the right to appeal under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (2006). United
States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 627 (4th Cir. 2010). We review
the validity of an appellate waiver de novo and will enforce the
waiver if it is valid and the issue appealed is within the scope
of that waiver. United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th
Cir. 2005). Generally, if the district court fully questions a
defendant regarding the waiver of his right to appeal during the
plea colloquy performed in accordance with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11,
the waiver is both valid and enforceable. Manigan, 592 F.3d at
627; United States v. Johnson, 410 F.3d 137, 151 (4th Cir.
2
2005). Our review of the record convinces us that Bedzhanyan
knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to appeal his
sentence. We therefore grant the Government’s motion to dismiss
the appeal of Bedzhanyan’s sentence.
Although Bedzhanyan’s appeal waiver insulates his
sentence from appellate review, the waiver does not prohibit our
review of his conviction pursuant to Anders. Accordingly, we
have reviewed the remainder of the record in this case and have
found no meritorious issues for review. We therefore affirm
Bedzhanyan’s conviction.
This court requires that counsel inform Bedzhanyan, in
writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Bedzhanyan 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 Bedzhanyan.
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.
DISMISSED IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART
3