US v. Yoaliang Gao
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to dismiss appeal [999666563-2] Originating case number: 1:14-cr-00218-JCC-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999702273].. [15-4282]
Appeal: 15-4282
Doc: 31
Filed: 11/19/2015
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4282
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
YOALIANG GAO,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (1:14-cr-00218-JCC-1)
Submitted:
November 17, 2015
Decided:
November 19, 2015
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mark Bodner, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellant. Jennifer Gimbert
Ballantyne, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 15-4282
Doc: 31
Filed: 11/19/2015
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Yoaliang Gao appeals his conviction for possession of 15 or
more counterfeit or unauthorized access devices and his 30-month
sentence.
Gao’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no
meritorious issues for appeal and acknowledging Gao’s waiver of
appellate rights but questioning the application of Sentencing
Guidelines
enhancements
position of trust.
for
loss
amount
and
for
abusing
a
Gao did not file a pro se supplemental brief
despite notice of his right to do so.
The Government has moved
to dismiss the appeal as barred by the appellate waiver included
in Gao’s plea agreement.
Pursuant to a plea agreement, a defendant may waive his
appellate rights under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (2012).
United States
v. Archie, 771 F.3d 217, 221 (4th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 135
S. Ct. 1579 (2015).
A waiver will preclude an appeal of “a
specific issue if . . . the waiver is valid and the issue being
appealed is within the scope of the waiver.”
waiver
is
valid
intelligently.”
(4th Cir. 2010).
if
he
agreed
to
it
Id.
A defendant’s
“knowingly
and
United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 627
Whether a defendant validly waived his right
to appeal is a question of law that we review de novo.
States v. Copeland, 707 F.3d 522, 528 (4th Cir. 2013).
2
United
Appeal: 15-4282
Doc: 31
Filed: 11/19/2015
Pg: 3 of 3
Upon review of the plea agreement and the transcript of the
Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing, we conclude that Gao knowingly and
voluntarily waived his right to appeal his conviction and any
sentence within the statutory maximum.
The sentencing claims
raised on appeal clearly fall within the scope of this broad
waiver.
Therefore, we grant the motion to dismiss and dismiss
Gao’s appeal.
with Anders
We have reviewed the entire record in accordance
and
have
found
no
meritorious
issues
for
appeal
outside the scope of the waiver.
This court requires that counsel inform Gao, in writing, of
the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review.
If Gao requests that a petition be filed, but
counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
counsel
may
move
representation.
in
and
materials
legal
before
court
for
leave
to
withdraw
from
Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Gao.
facts
this
We dispense with oral argument because the
contentions
are
adequately
this
and
argument
court
presented
would
not
in
the
aid
the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3
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?