Filed: Mar. 18, 2020
Latest Update: Mar. 18, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-4455 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MANUEL MARTINEZ-AGUILAR, a/k/a El Lunatic, a/k/a Zomb, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. James K. Bredar, Chief District Judge. (1:17-cr-00589-JKB-4) Submitted: March 12, 2020 Decided: March 18, 2020 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and THACKER and RUSHING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed in part and di
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-4455 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MANUEL MARTINEZ-AGUILAR, a/k/a El Lunatic, a/k/a Zomb, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. James K. Bredar, Chief District Judge. (1:17-cr-00589-JKB-4) Submitted: March 12, 2020 Decided: March 18, 2020 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and THACKER and RUSHING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed in part and dis..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-4455
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MANUEL MARTINEZ-AGUILAR, a/k/a El Lunatic, a/k/a Zomb,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
James K. Bredar, Chief District Judge. (1:17-cr-00589-JKB-4)
Submitted: March 12, 2020 Decided: March 18, 2020
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and THACKER and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Elita C. Amato, LAW OFFICE OF ELITA C. AMATO, Arlington, Virginia, for Appellant.
Teresa Ann Wallbaum, Criminal Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; Zachary Byrne Stendig, Assistant United States Attorney,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Manuel Martinez-Aguilar appeals his convictions and 288-month sentence imposed
following his guilty plea to conspiracy to participate in a racketeering enterprise, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) (2018), and using, carrying, brandishing, and discharging
a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)
(2018). Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967),
concluding that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether
Martinez-Aguilar’s sentence is reasonable. Although advised of his right to file a pro se
brief, Martinez-Aguilar has not done so. The Government has moved to dismiss the appeal
based on the waiver of appellate rights in Martinez-Aguilar’s plea agreement. We affirm
in part and dismiss in part.
Martinez-Aguilar’s waiver of appellate rights does not prevent him from
challenging the validity of the plea itself. See United States v. McCoy,
895 F.3d 358, 364
(4th Cir.), cert. denied,
139 S. Ct. 494 (2018). We therefore deny in part the Government’s
motion to dismiss and review the adequacy of the plea colloquy for plain error. See United
States v. Williams,
811 F.3d 621, 622 (4th Cir. 2016) (stating standard of review); United
States v. Sanya,
774 F.3d 812, 816 (4th Cir. 2014) (describing standard).
Before accepting a guilty plea, the district court must conduct a plea colloquy in
which the court informs the defendant of, and determines the defendant understands, the
rights he is relinquishing by pleading guilty, the charges to which he is pleading, and the
maximum and mandatory minimum penalties he faces. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1); United
States v. DeFusco,
949 F.2d 114, 116 (4th Cir. 1991). The court also must ensure that the
2
plea was voluntary and not the result of threats, force, or promises not contained in the plea
agreement, Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(2), and “that there is a factual basis for the plea.” Fed.
R. Crim. P. 11(b)(3). Here, our review of the plea agreement and the transcript of the guilty
plea hearing confirms that Martinez-Aguilar knowingly and intelligently waived his right
to appeal and that a factual basis supported the plea. See
DeFusco, 949 F.2d at 116, 119-
20.
Turning to Martinez-Aguilar’s appeal of his sentence, where, as here, the
Government seeks to enforce the appeal waiver and Martinez-Aguilar has not alleged a
breach of the plea agreement, we will enforce the waiver if it is valid and the issue being
appealed falls within the waiver’s scope. United States v. Dillard,
891 F.3d 151, 156 (4th
Cir. 2018). Martinez-Aguilar does not contest that he knowingly and intelligently waived
his right to appeal, see United States v. Manigan,
592 F.3d 621, 627 (4th Cir. 2010), and
our de novo review of the plea hearing leads us to conclude that the waiver is valid and
enforceable. See United States v. Cohen,
888 F.3d 667, 678 (4th Cir. 2018) (stating
standard of review). Moreover, Martinez-Aguilar’s challenge to the reasonableness of his
sentence falls within the waiver’s scope.
Accordingly, we grant in part the Government’s motion to dismiss and dismiss the
appeal of the sentence, and we deny in part the Government’s motion and affirm Martinez-
Aguilar’s convictions. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record and have
found no meritorious grounds for appeal that fall outside the scope of the waiver. This
court requires that counsel inform Martinez-Aguilar, in writing, of the right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Martinez-Aguilar requests that a
3
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 Martinez-Aguilar.
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.
AFFIRMED IN PART,
DISMISSED IN PART
4