US v. Jigar Patel
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to dismiss appeal [999619166-2]. Originating case number: 1:13-cr-00374-GLR-3. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999683829]. [15-4052]
Appeal: 15-4052
Doc: 39
Filed: 10/22/2015
Pg: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4052
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JIGAR PATEL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. George L. Russell, III, District Judge.
(1:13-cr-00374-GLR-3)
Submitted:
October 20, 2015
Decided:
October 22, 2015
Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gerald C. Ruter, LAW OFFICES OF GERALD C. RUTER, P.C., Towson,
Maryland, for Appellant.
Sandra Wilkinson, Assistant United
States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 15-4052
Doc: 39
Filed: 10/22/2015
Pg: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Jigar Patel pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to
making
false
statements
relating
to
health
care
matters
and
aiding and abetting the same, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2,
1035(a)
(2012),
imprisonment.
and
the
court
sentenced
him
to
13
months’
On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), conceding that Patel
knowingly
and
intelligently
conviction and sentence.
brief,
challenging
the
waived
the
right
to
appeal
his
Patel has filed a pro se supplemental
validity
of
his
appellate
waiver
and
arguing that the district court erred in imposing a two-level
enhancement for use of a special skill and abuse of a position
of trust to facilitate the commission of the offense.
Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3B1.3 (2013).
U.S.
The Government has
moved to dismiss the appeal based on the appellate waiver in the
plea agreement.
We
review
We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal.
the
validity
of
an
appellate
waiver
de
novo.
United States v. Copeland, 707 F.3d 522, 528 (4th Cir. 2013).
A
defendant’s waiver is valid if he agreed to it “knowingly and
intelligently.”
(4th Cir. 2010).
intelligent,
we
United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 627
“To determine whether a waiver is knowing and
examine
the
totality
of
the
circumstances,
including the experience and conduct of the accused, as well as
the accused’s educational background and familiarity with the
2
Appeal: 15-4052
Doc: 39
Filed: 10/22/2015
terms of the plea agreement.”
F.3d
532,
537
omitted).
(4th
Our
Cir.
review
of
Pg: 3 of 4
United States v. Thornsbury, 670
2012)
the
(internal
record
quotation
confirms
that
marks
Patel
knowingly and intelligently waived his right to appeal.
We
will
enforce
a
valid
waiver
so
long
as
“the
issue
appealed is within the scope of the waiver.”
Copeland, 707 F.3d
at 528 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Patel waived his
right to appeal his conviction and sentence, reserving only the
right to appeal a sentence based on an offense level greater
than
16.
Patel’s
challenge
to
the
USSG
§ 3B1.3
sentencing
enhancement does not lie within this narrow exception, but falls
squarely within the scope of the waiver.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no unwaived and potentially meritorious
issues
for
appeal.
Accordingly,
motion to dismiss the appeal.
we
grant
the
Government’s
This court requires that counsel
inform Patel, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme
Court
of
the
United
States
for
further
review.
If
Patel
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 Patel.
3
Appeal: 15-4052
Doc: 39
Filed: 10/22/2015
Pg: 4 of 4
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
4
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?