US v. Joel Dominguez-Arma

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to dismiss appeal [999317186-2] Originating case number: 5:12-cr-00362-BR-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999363699].. [13-4679, 13-4681]

Appeal: 13-4679

Doc: 45

Filed: 05/28/2014

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4679

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOEL DOMINGUEZ-ARMAS,
Defendant - Appellant.

No. 13-4681

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOEL DOMINGUEZ-ARMAS,
Defendant – Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
W. Earl Britt, Senior
District Judge. (5:12-cr-00362-BR-1; 5:13-cr-00151-BR-1)

Submitted:

May 19, 2014

Decided:

Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

May 28, 2014

Appeal: 13-4679

Doc: 45

Filed: 05/28/2014

Pg: 2 of 5

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant.
Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States
Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 13-4679

Doc: 45

Filed: 05/28/2014

Pg: 3 of 5

PER CURIAM:
Joel

Dominguez-Armas

pled

guilty,

pursuant

to

a

written plea agreement, to possession of a firearm by an illegal
alien,

18

U.S.C.

§

922(g)(5)

U.S.C. § 1326(a) (2012).

(2012),

and

illegal

reentry,

8

On appeal, Dominguez-Armas’ counsel

filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967),
appeal

asserting
but

that

questioning

cross-referencing
governing robbery.

the

there

are

whether
firearms

no

the

meritorious
district

offense

to

grounds

court
the

erred

for
by

Guidelines

Although advised of his right to file a

supplemental pro se brief, Dominguez-Armas has not done so.

The

United States seeks to dismiss the appeal based on the appellate
waiver provision in the plea agreement.
We review de novo 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

2005)

F.3d

omitted).

427,

430

(4th

Cir.

(internal

quotation

marks

Generally, if the district court fully questions the

defendant about the waiver during the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 plea
colloquy, the waiver is valid and enforceable.
Johnson, 410 F.3d 137, 151 (4th Cir. 2005).

3

United States v.
We will enforce a

Appeal: 13-4679

Doc: 45

Filed: 05/28/2014

Pg: 4 of 5

valid waiver so long as “the issue being appealed is within the
scope of the waiver.”

Blick, 408 F.3d at 168.

Our review of the record leads us to conclude that
Dominguez-Armas’
intelligent.

waiver

of

appellate

rights

was

knowing

and

Because the only issue he raises on appeal falls

within the scope of the waiver, we grant the Government’s motion
to

dismiss

Dominguez-Armas’

appeal

as

to

his

sentence

and

dismiss this portion of the appeal.
Although the waiver provision in the plea agreement
precludes

our

review

of

the

sentence,

the

waiver

does

not

preclude our review of any errors in Dominguez-Armas’ conviction
that may be revealed pursuant to the review required by Anders.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record
and have found no meritorious issues that are outside the scope
of the appeal waiver.

We therefore affirm the district court’s

judgment as to all issues not encompassed by Dominguez-Armas’
valid waiver of his right to appeal.
This

court

requires

that

counsel

inform

Dominguez-

Armas, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of
the

United

States

for

further

review.

If

Dominguez-Armas

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 Dominguez4

Appeal: 13-4679

Doc: 45

Armas.
legal
before

Filed: 05/28/2014

Pg: 5 of 5

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART

5