US v. Andysheh Ayatollahi
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to dismiss appeal [999982757-2] Originating case number: 2:10-cr-00015-RAJ-FBS-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. .. [16-4466]
Pg: 1 of 5
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
ANDYSHEH AYATOLLAHI, a/k/a Andy,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
January 17, 2017
January 20, 2017
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joseph Ryland Winston, LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH R. WINSTON,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Alan Mark Salsbury, Assistant
United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 5
subscribing a false tax return, 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1) (2012).
was sentenced to 74 months in prison.
Ayatollahi now appeals.
His attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising two issues but stating that there
are no meritorious grounds for appeal.
Ayatollahi was advised
of his right to file a pro se brief but has not filed such a
brief. The United States moves to dismiss the appeal based upon
Ayatollahi has responded to the motion.
We grant the motion to
dismiss the appeal.
We review de novo the validity of an appeal waiver.
States v. Copeland, 707 F.3d 522, 528 (4th Cir. 2013).
the Government seeks to enforce an appeal waiver and did not
breach its obligations under the plea agreement, we will enforce
knowingly and intelligently waived his right to appeal, and (2)
the issues raised on appeal fall within the scope of the waiver.
United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168-69 (4th Cir. 2005).
Pg: 3 of 5
To determine whether a waiver is knowing and intelligent,
we 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 terms of the
United States v. General, 278 F.3d 389, 400
factors to be considered are whether the waiver language in the
whether the district court fully questioned the defendant during
the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 colloquy regarding the waiver of his
right to appeal.
Id. at 400-401; see United States v. Johnson,
410 F.3d 137, 151 (4th Cir. 2005); United States v. Wessells,
district court specifically questioned the defendant regarding
the waiver during the colloquy or the record otherwise indicates
waiver, the waiver is valid.
Johnson, 410 F.3d at 151.
Ayatollahi’s plea agreement provided in relevant part:
The defendant . . . understands that Title 18, United
States Code, Section 3742 affords a defendant the
right to appeal the sentence imposed.
the defendant knowingly waives the right to appeal the
conviction and any sentence within the statutory
maximum . . . (or the manner in which that sentence
was determined) . . . on any ground whatsoever, in
exchange for the concessions made by the United
States. . . .
Pg: 4 of 5
In signing the agreement, Ayatollahi acknowledged:
I have consulted with my attorney and fully understand
all rights with respect to the pending indictment.
Further, I fully understand all rights with respect to
Title 18, United States Code, Section 3553 and the
provisions of the Sentencing Guidelines Manual that
may apply in my case. I have read this plea agreement
and carefully reviewed every part of it with my
attorney. I understand this agreement and voluntarily
agree to it.
At the Rule 11 hearing, Ayatollahi advised the court that
he was 36, had a high school diploma, and was not under the
influence of any medication.
He stated that he was pleading
guilty freely and voluntarily and that the factual basis offered
satisfied” with his attorney’s services.
He had read the plea
agreement, which he understood, and had discussed it with his
The court reviewed the terms of the appellate waiver
with Ayatollahi, who said that he understood it.
Our review of
the hearing transcript discloses that the court fully complied
with Rule 11.
We conclude that, under the totality of the circumstances,
Ayatollahi knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal
both his convictions and sentence.
Ayatollahi seeks to raise on appeal fall within the scope of the
We conclude that they do.
The only issues raised in
Pg: 5 of 5
challenge his convictions and sentence.
Pursuant to Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and
have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
grant the motion to dismiss the appeal.
This court requires
If Ayatollahi requests that a petition be filed, but
counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before this 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?