Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-04288/USCOURTS-ca4-19-04288-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Darus Zehrbach
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-4288

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DARUS ZEHRBACH,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at 

Clarksburg. Thomas S. Kleeh, District Judge. (1:18-cr-00060-TSK-MJA-1)

Submitted: February 24, 2020 Decided: March 11, 2020

Before AGEE, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kristen M. Leddy, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL 

PUBLIC DEFENDER, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. William J. Powell, 

United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, Jarod J. Douglas, Assistant United 

States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West 

Virginia, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-4288 Doc: 33 Filed: 03/11/2020 Pg: 1 of 4
2

PER CURIAM:

Darus Zehrbach pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to making a false 

statement to a federal agent, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2) (2018). Zehrbach’s 

counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), conceding that 

there are no meritorious issues for appeal outside the scope of Zehrbach’s appellate waiver, 

but questioning whether Zehrbach’s sentence is reasonable. Zehrbach filed two pro se 

supplemental briefs, in which he asserts actual innocence, among other issues. We ordered 

supplemental briefing on the issue of whether the district court procedurally erred by failing 

to address the parties’ nonfrivolous arguments for a probationary sentence.

The Government now seeks to enforce the appellate waiver in the plea agreement. 

We review de novo the issue of whether a defendant validly waived his right to appeal. 

United States v. McCoy, 895 F.3d 358, 362 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 494 (2018). 

Where, as here, the Government seeks to enforce the appeal waiver and has not breached 

the plea agreement, this Court will enforce the waiver if it is valid and the issue being 

appealed falls within the waiver’s scope. United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 627 (4th 

Cir. 2010).

A defendant’s waiver of rights is valid if he entered it knowingly and intelligently. 

United States v. Thornsbury, 670 F.3d 532, 537 (4th Cir. 2012). In making this 

determination, “we consider the totality of the circumstances, including the experience and 

conduct of the defendant, his educational background, and his knowledge of the plea 

agreement and its terms.” McCoy, 895 F.3d at 362 (internal quotation marks omitted). 

Generally, if the district court fully questions a defendant regarding the waiver position 

USCA4 Appeal: 19-4288 Doc: 33 Filed: 03/11/2020 Pg: 2 of 4
3

during the plea “colloquy and the record indicates that the defendant understood the full 

significance of the waiver, the waiver is valid.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 

Upon review of the plea agreement and the transcript of the Rule 11 hearing, we conclude 

that Zehrbach knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal and that any challenge 

to his sentence falls squarely within the compass of the appellate waiver.

However, the appellate waiver does not bar Zehrbach’s assertion of actual 

innocence, which we construe as a challenge to the factual basis for his guilty plea. See id.

at 364. Because Zehrbach did not move to withdraw his guilty plea, we review the 

adequacy of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing for plain error. United States v. Lockhart, 947 

F.3d 187, 191 (4th Cir. 2020) (en banc). “‘Before entering judgment on a guilty plea, the 

[district] court must determine that there is a factual basis for the plea.’” United States v. 

Stitz, 877 F.3d 533, 536 (4th Cir. 2017) (quoting Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(3)). To satisfy this 

standard, the court “need only be subjectively satisfied that there is a sufficient factual basis 

for a conclusion that the defendant committed all of the elements of the offense.” Id.

(internal quotation marks omitted).

We conclude that there is a sufficient factual basis for the plea. Regardless of 

whether Zehrbach’s sale of scooters to Iran was legal under the sanctions regime, he was 

convicted of making a false statement to a federal officer—lying about where the scooters 

were shipped from. Although Zehrbach now claims that his statement was true, this 

contradicts his sworn statement at the Rule 11 hearing. See United States v. Lemaster, 403 

F.3d 216, 221 (4th Cir. 2005) (“A defendant’s solemn declarations in open court affirming 

a plea agreement carry a strong presumption of verity.” (alteration and internal quotation 

USCA4 Appeal: 19-4288 Doc: 33 Filed: 03/11/2020 Pg: 3 of 4
4

marks omitted)). Moreover, the presentence report identified the specific emails referenced 

at the Rule 11 hearing that indicated that Zehrbach did not have the capacity to manufacture 

scooters in China as he had stated to federal officers. See United States v. Ketchum, 550 

F.3d 363, 366-67 (4th Cir. 2008) (recognizing “district court may conclude that a factual 

basis exists from anything that appears on the record, and it may defer its inquiry until 

sentencing” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, we affirm 

Zehrbach’s conviction.

Pursuant to Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and have found no 

meritorious issues for appeal that fall outside the scope of the appeal waiver. We therefore 

affirm in part and dismiss in part. This court requires that counsel inform Zehrbach, in 

writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. 

If Zehrbach 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 Zehrbach.

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

USCA4 Appeal: 19-4288 Doc: 33 Filed: 03/11/2020 Pg: 4 of 4