Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-04811/USCOURTS-ca4-07-04811-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alejandro Socorro Tovar-Avila
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-4811

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ALEJANDRO SOCORRO TOVAR-AVILA, a/k/a Jhonathan Calvin Mitchell,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Newport News. Robert G. Doumar, Senior

District Judge. (4:06-cr-00105-RGD)

Submitted: March 28, 2008 Decided: June 13, 2008

Before MICHAEL and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Keith Loren

Kimball, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Norfolk, Virginia, for

Appellant. Chuck Rosenberg, United States Attorney, Scott W.

Putney, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-4811 Doc: 28 Filed: 06/13/2008 Pg: 1 of 4
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Alejandro Socorro Tovar-Avila pled guilty pursuant to a

written plea agreement to conspiracy to possess with intent to

distribute and to distribute cocaine and heroin, in violation of 21

U.S.C. § 846 (2000). Tovar-Avila was sentenced to the statutory

minimum of 120 months’ imprisonment. We grant the Government’s

motion to dismiss the appeal.

On appeal, Tovar-Avila contends the district court erred

in denying him application of the “safety valve” provision of U.S.

Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5C1.2(a) (2006). The Government,

however, asserts this claim is precluded by the waiver of appellate

rights in Tovar-Avila’s plea agreement, according to which he

waived “the right to appeal the conviction and any sentence within

the statutory maximums . . . (or the manner in which that sentence

was determined) on the grounds set forth in Title 18, United States

Code, Section 3742, or on any ground whatsoever . . . .”

A defendant may, in a valid plea agreement, waive the

right to appeal under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (2000). United States v.

Wiggins, 905 F.2d 51, 53 (4th Cir. 1990). Whether a defendant has

effectively waived the right to appeal is an issue of law we review

de novo. United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir.

2005).

Where, as here, the United States seeks enforcement of an

appeal waiver and there is no claim that the United

States breached its obligations under the plea agreement,

we will enforce the waiver to preclude a defendant from

Appeal: 07-4811 Doc: 28 Filed: 06/13/2008 Pg: 2 of 4
- 3 -

appealing a specific issue if the record establishes that

the waiver is valid and that the issue being appealed is

within the scope of the waiver.

Id. (internal citations omitted). An appeal waiver is valid if the

defendant knowingly and intelligently agreed to waive his right to

appeal. Id. at 169. However, “[a]n appeal waiver is not knowingly

or voluntarily made if the district court fails to specifically

question the defendant concerning the waiver provision of the plea

agreement during the [Fed. R. Crim. P.] 11 colloquy and the record

indicates that the defendant did not otherwise understand the full

significance of the waiver.” United States v. Johnson, 410 F.3d

137, 151 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted).

The language in the plea agreement is clear and

unambiguous. At the Rule 11 hearing, it was established that

Tovar-Avila was thirty-four years old, had completed the ninth

grade, and could read and write. He did not have a history of

mental illness or substance abuse. Tovar-Avila confirmed he had

not only signed the plea agreement, but had also initialed each

page after reading it. He further acknowledged that he had

discussed the agreement with his counsel prior to signing. The

district court specifically questioned Tovar-Avila regarding the

appellate waiver, and Tovar-Avila responded that he understood its

effects. Therefore, we conclude the appellate waiver is both valid

and enforceable. Further, because Tovar-Avila’s issue clearly

Appeal: 07-4811 Doc: 28 Filed: 06/13/2008 Pg: 3 of 4
- 4 -

falls within the broad scope of the waiver, we conclude the terms

of the agreement should be enforced.

Accordingly, we grant the Government’s motion to dismiss

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 07-4811 Doc: 28 Filed: 06/13/2008 Pg: 4 of 4