UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-5166
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RAFAEL OMAR VILLEGAS-MARTINEZ, a/k/a Lunar,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 12-4012
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARIO MOLINA-VALLADAREZ, a/k/a Tiger,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge.
(8:09-cr-00471-RWT-3; 8:09-cr-00471-RWT-1)
Submitted: November 6, 2012 Decided: November 14, 2012
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Marc G. Hall, HALL & CHO, PC, Rockville, Maryland; Elita C.
Amato, LAW OFFICE OF ELITA C. AMATO, Arlington, Virginia, for
Appellants. William Moomau, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Rafael Omar Villegas-Martinez (“Martinez”) and Mario
Molina-Valladarez (“Valladarez”) pled guilty, pursuant to plea
agreements, to conspiracy to participate in a racketeering
enterprise, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) (2006).
Martinez was sentenced to 276 months’ imprisonment, and
Valladarez was sentenced to 293 months’ imprisonment. On
appeal, counsel have filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there are no
meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether the
district court properly considered and applied the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) (2006) factors. The Government has filed a motion to
dismiss this appeal in part on the ground that Appellants
knowingly and intelligently waived their right to appeal their
convictions and sentences. For the reasons that follow, we
dismiss in part and affirm in part.
In their plea agreements, Appellants waived their
right to appeal their convictions and sentences, except to the
extent that their sentences exceeded the Guidelines range based
upon an offense level of thirty-seven. 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 the Fed. R.
3
Crim. P. 11 colloquy, the waiver is both valid and enforceable.
United States v. Johnson, 410 F.3d 137, 151 (4th Cir. 2005);
United States v. Wessells, 936 F.2d 165, 167-68 (4th Cir. 1991).
A review of the record reveals that the court determined
Appellants were competent to plead guilty, had the opportunity
to discuss their plea agreements with counsel, entered their
guilty pleas in the absence of threats or force, and understood
the terms of their appeal waivers regarding their sentences.
Thus, we conclude that Appellants validly waived their right to
appeal their sentences and that the claims raised on appeal fall
within the scope of their waivers. United States v. Blick, 408
F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir. 2005) (providing standard).
Accordingly, we grant the Government’s motion to dismiss in part
and dismiss the appeal of Appellants’ sentences.
The record reveals, however, that the court did not
ensure Appellants understood the terms of their appeal waivers
regarding their convictions. Thus, we deny in part the
Government’s motion to dismiss the appeal of Appellants’
convictions. Nevertheless, in accordance with Anders, we have
reviewed the record in this case and have found no unwaived and
potentially meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm
Appellants’ convictions.
This court requires that counsel inform Appellants, in
writing, of their right to petition the Supreme Court of the
4
United States for further review. If Appellants request that a
petition be filed, but counsel believe 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 Appellants. 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
5