United States v. Shola Balogun , 594 F. App'x 211 ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4615
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SHOLA RISIKAT BALOGUN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District
Judge. (8:12-cr-00628-PJM-1)
Submitted: February 25, 2015 Decided: March 3, 2015
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Cornish F. Hitchcock, HITCHCOCK LAW FIRM PLLC, Washington, D.C.,
for Appellant. Sujit Raman, Assistant United States Attorney,
Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Shola Risikat Balogun pled guilty to conspiracy to
commit wire fraud in violation 18 U.S.C. § 1349 (2012) and was
sentenced to thirty-seven months of imprisonment. On appeal her
attorney has filed a brief pursuant to pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no
meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioning whether the
district court imposed an unreasonable sentence by not
downwardly departuring in recognition of Balogun’s substantial
assistance and by failing to give sufficient weight to the 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors. The Government has filed a
motion to dismiss. For the reasons that follow, we dismiss in
part and affirm in part.
A defendant may waive the right to appeal if that
waiver is knowing and intelligent. United States v. Poindexter,
492 F.3d 263, 270 (4th Cir. 2007). Generally, if the district
court fully questions a defendant regarding the waiver of her
right to appeal during the plea colloquy performed in accordance
with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, the waiver is both valid and
enforceable. United States v. Johnson, 410 F.3d 137, 151 (4th
Cir. 2005); United States v. Wessells, 936 F.2d 165, 167-68 (4th
Cir. 1991). The question of whether a defendant validly waived
her right to appeal is a question of law that this court reviews
de novo. United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir.
2
2005). Our review of the record leads us to conclude that
Balogun knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to appeal her
sentence, except for circumstances not present in this appeal,
and the court conducted the plea colloquy in compliance with
Rule 11. We therefore grant the Government’s motion to dismiss
the appeal of Balogun’s sentence.
Balogun’s waiver does not preclude our consideration
of her conviction. As noted above, Balogun’s plea hearing
complied with Rule 11 and therefore we discern no plain error in
the district court’s acceptance of her plea. See United States
v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002) (noting plain
error review standard when a defendant did not move in the
district court to withdraw guilty plea); United States v.
DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116, 119-20 (4th Cir. 1991).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the
remainder of the record in this case and have found no
meritorious issues not foreclosed by Balogun’s appellate waiver.
We therefore affirm Balogun’s conviction. This court requires
that counsel inform Balogun, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Balogun 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
3
was served on Balogun. 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 IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART
4