US v. Julia Teryaeva-Reed
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to dismiss appeal [1000244238-2] Originating case number: 1:14-cr-00207-GLR-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000342294].. [17-4513]
Appeal: 17-4513
Doc: 47
Filed: 08/03/2018
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-4513
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JULIA TERYAEVA-REED,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:14-cr-00207-GLR-1)
Submitted: July 27, 2018
Decided: August 3, 2018
Before KING, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marc Gregory Hall, LAW OFFICE OF MARC G. HALL, P.C., Greenbelt, Maryland, for
Appellant. Matthew James Maddox, Judson T. Mihok, Assistant United States
Attorneys, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 17-4513
Doc: 47
Filed: 08/03/2018
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Julia Teryaeva-Reed seeks to appeal her sentence after pleading guilty.
The
Government has moved to dismiss the appeal as barred by her appeal waiver. TeryaevaReed’s attorney has filed a response to the Government’s motion to dismiss and a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising a sentencing claim but
concluding there are no meritorious grounds for appeal. Teryaeva-Reed was notified of
her right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. We dismiss the appeal.
“‘A plea agreement, like any contract, allocates risk.’” United States v. Archie,
771 F.3d 217, 222 (4th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). “A defendant may waive the right
to appeal [her] conviction and sentence so long as the waiver is knowing and voluntary.”
United States v. Copeland, 707 F.3d 522, 528 (4th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted). “Where, as here, the Government seeks enforcement of an appeal
waiver and there is no claim that the Government breached its obligations under the plea
agreement, the waiver will be enforced to preclude a defendant from appealing a specific
issue if the record establishes that the waiver is valid and the issue being appealed is
within the scope of the waiver.” Archie, 771 F.3d at 221 (citations omitted). “Generally,
if a district court questions a defendant regarding the waiver of appellate rights during the
Rule 11 colloquy and the record indicates that the defendant understood the full
significance of the waiver, the waiver is valid.” United States v. Tate, 845 F.3d 571, 574
n.1 (4th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Upon review of the plea agreement and transcript of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11
hearing, we conclude that Teryaeva-Reed knowingly and voluntarily waived her right to
2
Appeal: 17-4513
Doc: 47
Filed: 08/03/2018
Pg: 3 of 3
appeal her conviction and sentence, and the issue that she seeks to appeal falls within the
scope of the waiver. Moreover, in accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
for any potentially meritorious issues that might fall outside the waiver and have found
none. Accordingly, we grant the Government’s motion to dismiss the appeal.
This court requires that counsel inform his or her client, in writing, of his or her
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client
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 the client. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in
the materials before the court and argument would not 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?