US v. Orbin Adali Mendoza-Argueta


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to dismiss appeal [999979476-2] Originating case number: 1:15-cr-00286-JKB-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000117433].. [16-4661]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-4661 Doc: 34 Filed: 07/13/2017 Pg: 1 of 5 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-4661 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. ORBIN ADALI MENDOZA-ARGUETA, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. James K. Bredar, District Judge. (1:15-cr-00286-JKB-1) Submitted: February 13, 2017 Decided: July 13, 2017 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, THACKER, Circuit Judge, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. A.D. Martin, LAW OFFICE OF ANTHONY D. MARTIN, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Michael Clayton Hanlon, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-4661 Doc: 34 Filed: 07/13/2017 Pg: 2 of 5 PER CURIAM: In accordance with a written plea agreement, Orbin Adali Mendoza-Argueta (Mendoza) pled guilty to possession of firearms by an alien illegally and unlawfully in the United States, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5) (2012). prison. He was sentenced to 42 months in Mendoza now appeals. His attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), claiming that the sentence is unreasonable. Mendoza has filed a pro se supplemental brief challenging both his conviction and sentence. The United States moves to waiver-of-appellate-rights dismiss the appeal in the provision Mendoza opposes the motion. based plea upon a agreement. We grant the motion to dismiss the appeal. I We review de novo the validity of an appeal waiver. United States v. Copeland, 707 F.3d 522, 528 (4th Cir. 2013). Where the Government seeks to enforce an appeal waiver and did not breach its obligations under the plea agreement, we will enforce the waiver knowingly if and the record establishes intelligently waived his that (1) right the to defendant 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). 2 Appeal: 16-4661 Doc: 34 Filed: 07/13/2017 Pg: 3 of 5 A 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 plea agreement.” (4th Cir. United States v. General, 278 F.3d 389, 400 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). Other factors to be considered are whether the waiver language in the plea agreement was “unambiguous” and “plainly embodied,” and 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 400-01; see United States v. Johnson, 410 F.3d 137, 151 (4th Cir. 2005); United States v. Wessells, 936 F.3d 165, 167-68 (4th Cir. 1991). Generally, if the district court specifically questioned the defendant regarding the waiver during the colloquy or the record otherwise indicates that the defendant understood waiver, the waiver is valid. the full significance of Johnson, 410 F.3d at 151. Mendoza’s plea agreement provided in relevant part: The Defendant knowingly waives all right . . . to appeal the Defendant’s conviction. . . . The Defendant . . . knowingly waive[s] all right to appeal whatever sentence is imposed (including the right to appeal any issues that relate to the establishment of the advisory guidelines range, the determination of the defendant’s criminal history, the weighing of the sentencing factors, and the decision whether to impose and the calculation of any term of imprisonment, fine, 3 the Appeal: 16-4661 Doc: 34 Filed: 07/13/2017 Pg: 4 of 5 order of forfeiture, order of restitution, and term or condition of supervised release. In signing the agreement, Mendoza acknowledged: I have read this agreement . . . and carefully reviewed every part of it with my attorney. I understand it, and I voluntarily agree to it. . . . I am completely satisfied with the representation of my attorney. At the Rule 11 hearing, Mendoza advised the court that he was 37, had the equivalent of a high school education, and was not under the influence of any medication or alcohol. He stated that he was pleading guilty freely and voluntarily and that the factual basis offered in support of the plea was accurate. was entirely satisfied with his attorney’s services. He He had read the plea agreement, which he understood, and had discussed it with his attorney. The court reviewed the terms of the appellate waiver with Mendoza, 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, Mendoza knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal both his conviction and sentence. B Under Blick, the next question is whether the issues Mendoza seeks to raise on appeal fall within the scope of the waiver. We conclude that they do. 4 The only issues raised in Appeal: 16-4661 Doc: 34 Filed: 07/13/2017 Pg: 5 of 5 the briefs are whether the conviction is valid and whether the sentence is reasonable. the waiver. Those issues are clearly encompassed by We therefore hold that Mendoza validly waived his right to challenge his conviction and sentence. II Pursuant to Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. grant the motion to dismiss the appeal. that counsel inform Mendoza, in the petition the Supreme Court of review. If Mendoza requests This court requires writing, that United a Accordingly, we of the States petition right for be to further filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move representation. in this court for leave to withdraw from Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Mendoza. 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 5

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?