United States v. Angel Ramirez , 452 F. App'x 330 ( 2011 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4101
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ANGEL JORGE RAMIREZ, a/k/a Negro,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
(1:10-cr-00157-RDB-1)
Submitted: October 20, 2011 Decided: October 27, 2011
Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Meghan S. Skelton, Staff
Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Peter Marshall
Nothstein, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Pursuant to a plea agreement, Angel Jorge Ramirez pled
guilty to conspiracy to interfere with commerce through robbery.
He was sentenced to thirty months in prison. On appeal, counsel
has filed an Anders * brief, stating that there are no meritorious
grounds for appeal but questioning whether the district court
gave sufficient reasoning for the chosen sentence. Ramirez has
not filed a pro se brief. The Government has moved to dismiss
the appeal, based on a waiver provision in Ramirez’s plea
agreement. We affirm in part and dismiss in part.
A defendant may waive the right to appeal if that
waiver is knowing and intelligent. United States v. Blick, 408
F.3d 162, 169 (4th Cir. 2005). Generally, if the district court
fully questions a defendant at his Fed. R. Crim. P. 11
proceeding regarding the waiver of his right to appeal, the
waiver is both valid and enforceable. United States v. Johnson,
410 F.3d 137, 151 (4th Cir. 2005). Whether a defendant validly
waived his right to appeal is a question of law that we review
de novo. Blick, 408 F.3d at 168.
After reviewing the record, we conclude that Ramirez
knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal his
sentence, retaining only his right to appeal a sentence greater
*
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
2
than thirty-six months. Accordingly, as Ramirez was sentenced
to thirty months, he retained no appellate rights with respect
to his sentence. We therefore grant, in part, the Government’s
motion to dismiss and dismiss this portion of the appeal.
The waiver provision does not prevent our review of
any errors in Ramirez’s conviction, however. After reviewing
the entire record in accordance with Anders, we conclude that
there are no unwaived, meritorious issues for appeal. Thus, we
deny, in part, the Government’s motion to dismiss and affirm
Ramirez’s conviction. Thus, we affirm Ramirez’s conviction and
dismiss the appeal of his sentence. This court requires that
counsel inform his client, in writing, of his 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 of the
motion was served on his 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.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
3