US v. Tony Peguero
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. TONY ARISMENDY PEGUERO, Defendant Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (5:07-cr-00017-RLV-DCK-1)
July 20, 2009
August 3, 2009
Before MOTZ, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Denzil H. Edward R. Carolina, Asheville,
Forrester, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Ryan, Acting United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Amy E. Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Tony Arismendy Peguero pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement kilograms violation to of of possession cocaine 21 with the intent and to distribute the five in and
18 U.S.C. § 2 (2006).
After finding Peguero eligible for the
safety valve, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) (2006), the district court sentenced him to 108 months' imprisonment. On appeal, Peguero The that
claims that his guilty plea was unknowing and involuntary. Government urges dismissal of the appeal on the ground
Peguero validly waived his right to appeal his conviction in his plea agreement. A We affirm. may waive the right to appeal if that
waiver is knowing and intelligent. 408 F.3d 162, 169 (4th Cir. 2005).
See United States v. Blick, Generally, if the district
court fully questions a defendant regarding the waiver of his right to appeal during the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 colloquy, the waiver is both valid and enforceable. See United States v. Whether a defendant
Johnson, 410 F.3d 137, 151 (4th Cir. 2005).
validly waived his right to appeal is a question of law that we review de novo. See Blick, 408 F.3d at 168. Our review of the
record reveals that Peguero knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence.
We his guilty in
conclude, plea was
Peguero's that the
that court the
his plea because See,
constitutes it e.g.,
exception a States
"colorable" v. Attar,
38 F.3d 727, 733 n.2 (4th Cir. 1994). the Government's suggestion to
Accordingly, we decline dismiss the appeal.
Nevertheless, although we possess jurisdiction to consider this claim, we find it to be without merit. the magistrate that judge conducted a The record confirms that Rule 11 hearing, and
Peguero's belated claim that he was confused
at the hearing and did not understand the consequences of his plea is simply belied by the record. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment. 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.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?