Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-04505/USCOURTS-ca4-19-04505-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Reyes Barrera Alachan
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-4505

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

REYES BARRERA ALACHAN,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 19-4506

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

REYES BARRERA ALACHAN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:19-cr-00073-CMH-1; 1:18-cr00380-CMH-1)

Submitted: January 31, 2020 Decided: February 5, 2020

USCA4 Appeal: 19-4505 Doc: 30 Filed: 02/05/2020 Pg: 1 of 4
2

Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John C. Kiyonaga, LAW OFFICE OF JOHN C. KIYONAGA, Alexandria, Virginia, for 

Appellant. G. Zachary Terwilliger, United States Attorney, Katherine E. Rumbaugh, 

Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, 

Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-4505 Doc: 30 Filed: 02/05/2020 Pg: 2 of 4
3

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Reyes Barrera Alachan (“Barrera”), seeks to appeal 

his sentence imposed by the district court after he pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute 

500 grams or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2018), possession with 

intent to distribute and to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2018),

and engaging in the business of dealing firearms without a license, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§§ 922(a)(1)(A), 923(a), 924(a)(1)(D) (2018). He argues that his sentence is procedurally 

unreasonable because the district court incorrectly determined his criminal history 

category, improperly enhanced his Sentencing Guidelines sentence for possessing a 

firearm in connection with another felony, and improperly imposed a Guidelines 

enhancement in violation of his right to due process, citing United States v. Davis, 139 S. 

Ct. 2319 (2019) (holding that residual clause in § 924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague). 

The Government contends that the appeals are barred by Barrera’s waiver of the right to 

appeal in the written plea agreement.

Upon review of the plea agreement and the transcript of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11

hearing, we conclude that Barrera knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal

any sentence within the statutory maximum, and that the issues Barrera seeks to raise on 

appeal fall squarely within the compass of his waiver of appellate rights. See United 

States v. Dillard, 891 F.3d 151, 156-57 (4th Cir. 2018) (stating standard of review and 

providing standard for enforcement of appeal waiver). 

USCA4 Appeal: 19-4505 Doc: 30 Filed: 02/05/2020 Pg: 3 of 4
4

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the material before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

USCA4 Appeal: 19-4505 Doc: 30 Filed: 02/05/2020 Pg: 4 of 4