United States v. Jigar Patel ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4052
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JIGAR PATEL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. George L. Russell, III, District Judge.
(1:13-cr-00374-GLR-3)
Submitted: October 20, 2015 Decided: October 22, 2015
Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gerald C. Ruter, LAW OFFICES OF GERALD C. RUTER, P.C., Towson,
Maryland, for Appellant. Sandra Wilkinson, Assistant United
States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jigar Patel pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to
making false statements relating to health care matters and
aiding and abetting the same, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2,
1035(a) (2012), and the court sentenced him to 13 months’
imprisonment. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), conceding that Patel
knowingly and intelligently waived the right to appeal his
conviction and sentence. Patel has filed a pro se supplemental
brief, challenging the validity of his appellate waiver and
arguing that the district court erred in imposing a two-level
enhancement for use of a special skill and abuse of a position
of trust to facilitate the commission of the offense. U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3B1.3 (2013). The Government has
moved to dismiss the appeal based on the appellate waiver in the
plea agreement. We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal.
We review the validity of an appellate waiver de novo.
United States v. Copeland, 707 F.3d 522, 528 (4th Cir. 2013). A
defendant’s waiver is valid if he agreed to it “knowingly and
intelligently.” United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 627
(4th Cir. 2010). “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
2
terms of the plea agreement.” United States v. Thornsbury, 670
F.3d 532, 537 (4th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks
omitted). Our review of the record confirms that Patel
knowingly and intelligently waived his right to appeal.
We will enforce a valid waiver so long as “the issue
appealed is within the scope of the waiver.” Copeland, 707 F.3d
at 528 (internal quotation marks omitted). Patel waived his
right to appeal his conviction and sentence, reserving only the
right to appeal a sentence based on an offense level greater
than 16. Patel’s challenge to the USSG § 3B1.3 sentencing
enhancement does not lie within this narrow exception, but falls
squarely within the scope of the waiver.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no unwaived and potentially meritorious
issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant the Government’s
motion to dismiss the appeal. This court requires that counsel
inform Patel, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme
Court of the United States for further review. If Patel
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 Patel.
3
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
4