US v. Ismail Omara

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to dismiss [999169300-2]. Originating case number: 3:12-cr-00008-GMG-DJJ-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999234867].. [13-4437]

Appeal: 13-4437

Doc: 26

Filed: 11/06/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4437

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ISMAIL S. OMARA, a/k/a Omara S. Ismail,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg.
Gina M. Groh,
District Judge. (3:12-cr-00008-GMG-DJJ-1)

Submitted:

October 25, 2013

Decided:

November 6, 2013

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.

Nicholas J. Compton, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Kristen
M. Leddy, Research and Writing Specialist, Martinsburg, West
Virginia, for Appellant.
John Castle Parr, Assistant United
States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-4437

Doc: 26

Filed: 11/06/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Ismail Omara seeks to appeal his sentence for bank
fraud.

See 18 U.S.C. § 1344 (2006).

Omara pled guilty pursuant

to a written plea agreement and was sentenced to time served and
five years of supervised release.
Omara

to

pay

restitution

in

The district court ordered

the

amount

of

$25,152.32.

On

appeal, counsel for Omara filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California,

386

U.S.

738

(1967),

asserting

there

are

no

meritorious issues for appeal but questioning the reasonableness
of

the

term

of

supervised

release.

Omara

filed

a

pro

supplemental brief echoing the claim raised by counsel.

se
The

Government has moved to dismiss the appeal as barred by Omara’s
waiver of the right to appeal included in the plea agreement.
We affirm in part and dismiss in part.
Our review of the record leads us to conclude that
Omara knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal his
sentence.

See United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168-69 (4th

Cir. 2005).

The issue raised by Omara and by his counsel falls

within the scope of that waiver.

Accordingly, because Omara

knowingly

into

and

Government
dismiss

in

now

voluntarily
seeks

part

and

to

entered

enforce

dismiss

defendant may lawfully waive.

it,

all

we

the
grant

sentencing

waiver

and

the

motion

issues

that

the
to
a

As to any remaining issues, we

have reviewed the entire record in accordance with Anders and
2

Appeal: 13-4437

Doc: 26

Filed: 11/06/2013

Pg: 3 of 3

have found no unwaived meritorious issues.

We therefore affirm

the district court’s judgment as to all issues not encompassed
by Omara’s valid waiver of appellate rights.
This
writing,

of

Court

the

requires

right

to

that

petition

United States for further review.

counsel
the

inform

Supreme

Omara,

Court

of

in
the

If Omara 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 Omara.

We dispense with

oral

contentions

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

materials

legal
before

this

Court

are
and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART

3