Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-04011/USCOURTS-ca4-15-04011-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Melchor Calderon
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4011

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MELCHOR CALDERON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. David A. Faber, 

Senior District Judge. (7:12-cr-00037-FA-2)

Submitted: November 17, 2015 Decided: November 25, 2015

Before GREGORY, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam 

opinion.

R. Clarke Speaks, SPEAKS LAW FIRM, Wilmington, North Carolina, 

for Appellant. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States

Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4011 Doc: 36 Filed: 11/25/2015 Pg: 1 of 4
2

PER CURIAM:

Melchor Calderon pled guilty in accordance with a written 

plea agreement to: conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery, 18 

U.S.C. § 1951 (2012); using and carrying a firearm during and in 

relation to a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(B)(i) 

(2012); conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to 

distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 846 

(2012); and kidnapping, 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a) (2012). Calderon 

was sentenced to 252 months in prison. He now appeals. His 

attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 

U.S. 738 (1967), claiming that the sentence is unreasonable but 

stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal. 

Calderon was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental 

brief but did not file such a brief. The United States moves to 

dismiss the appeal based on a waiver-of-appellate-rights 

provision in the plea agreement. Calderon opposes the motion. 

We affirm in part and dismiss in part.

The appeal waiver did not apply to Calderon’s convictions. 

Having reviewed the entire record, we hold that: the district 

court substantially complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11; there was 

a factual basis for the plea; and the plea was knowingly and 

voluntarily entered. Accordingly, we affirm the convictions.

Appeal: 15-4011 Doc: 36 Filed: 11/25/2015 Pg: 2 of 4
3

In the plea agreement, Calderon waived his right to appeal 

his sentence.* Upon review of the record, we conclude, given the 

totality of the circumstances, that the waiver is valid and 

enforceable. We further find that the issue Calderon seeks to 

raise on appeal — whether the sentence is reasonable — falls 

within the scope of the waiver. See United States v. Blick, 408 

F.3d 162, 168-69 (4th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, we grant the 

motion to dismiss Calderon’s appeal of his sentence. 

Pursuant to Anders, we have reviewed the entire record for 

meritorious, nonwaivable issues and have found none. We 

therefore affirm in part and dismiss in part. This court 

requires that counsel inform Calderon, in writing, of his right 

to petition the Supreme Court of the United State for further 

review. If Calderon requests that such a petition be filed, but 

counsel believes that the 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 Calderon. We dispense with oral argument 

 * Calderon waived “all rights . . . to appeal whatever 

sentence is imposed, including any issues that relate to the 

establishment of the advisory Guideline range, reserving only 

the right to appeal from a sentence in excess of the applicable 

advisory Guideline range that was established at sentencing, . . 

. excepting an appeal . . . based upon grounds of ineffective 

assistance of counsel or prosecutorial misconduct not known to 

the Defendant at the time of the . . . guilty plea.” 

Appeal: 15-4011 Doc: 36 Filed: 11/25/2015 Pg: 3 of 4
4

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

Appeal: 15-4011 Doc: 36 Filed: 11/25/2015 Pg: 4 of 4