Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-04800/USCOURTS-ca4-15-04800-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jose Yunides Molina Mendoza
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4800

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

JOSE YUNIDES MOLINA MENDOZA, a/k/a Jose Mendoza, a/k/a Jose 

Y. Mendoza, 

Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Paul W. Grimm, District Judge. (8:15-

cr-00191-PWG-1) 

Submitted: August 29, 2016 Decided: September 14, 2016

Before FLOYD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam 

opinion. 

Marc Gregory Hall, LAW OFFICES OF MARC G. HALL, P.C., Greenbelt, 

Maryland, for Appellant. Sumon Srinivas Dantiki, OFFICE OF THE 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Francesca Anne Liquori, Special 

Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for 

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

Appeal: 15-4800 Doc: 37 Filed: 09/14/2016 Pg: 1 of 4
2

PER CURIAM: 

Jose Yunides Molina Mendoza (Mendoza) pleaded guilty, 

pursuant to a written plea agreement, to reentry of an alien 

deported after conviction for an aggravated felony, in violation 

of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2012). The district court 

calculated Mendoza’s advisory Guidelines range under the U.S. 

Sentencing Guidelines Manual at 57 to 71 months’ imprisonment 

and sentenced Mendoza to 46 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, 

Mendoza’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no 

meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether the 

district court abused its discretion in imposing the 46-month 

sentence. The Government has moved to dismiss the appeal of 

Mendoza’s sentence based on the waiver of appellate rights 

included in the plea agreement. Mendoza was informed of his 

right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not done 

so. We dismiss in part and affirm in part. 

A defendant may waive the right to appeal if that waiver is 

knowing and intelligent. United States v. Poindexter, 492 F.3d 

263, 270 (4th Cir. 2007). Generally, if the district court 

fully questions a defendant regarding the waiver of his right to 

appeal during a plea colloquy performed in accordance with Fed. 

R. Crim. P. 11, the waiver is both valid and enforceable. 

Appeal: 15-4800 Doc: 37 Filed: 09/14/2016 Pg: 2 of 4
3

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 this court reviews de novo. United

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

Our review of the record leads us to conclude that Mendoza 

knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to appeal his 

46-month sentence. We therefore grant the Government’s motion 

to dismiss and dismiss the appeal of Mendoza’s sentence. 

The Government does not seek to enforce the appeal waiver 

with respect to Mendoza’s conviction, and we therefore may 

“perform the required Anders review” with respect to that 

conviction. See Poindexter, 492 F.3d at 271. In accordance 

with Anders, we have reviewed the remainder of the record in 

this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. 

We therefore affirm Mendoza’s conviction. 

This court requires that counsel inform Mendoza, in 

writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the 

United States for further review. If Mendoza 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 Mendoza. 

Appeal: 15-4800 Doc: 37 Filed: 09/14/2016 Pg: 3 of 4
4

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 IN PART;

AFFIRMED IN PART

Appeal: 15-4800 Doc: 37 Filed: 09/14/2016 Pg: 4 of 4