UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-4718

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

EDUARDO RIVERA, a/k/a Mauricio Rodriguez, a/k/a Hector 

Almodovar Valentin, a/k/a Daniel Eduardo Rivera,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District 

Judge. (1:11-cr-00012-WDQ-1)

Submitted: April 19, 2012 Decided: April 24, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part, dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam 

opinion.

James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Joanna Silver, Staff 

Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Gregory Robert 

Bockin, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Eduardo Rivera pled guilty to one count of false 

statement in applying for and using a passport, in violation of 

18 U.S.C. § 1542 (2006), and one count of aggravated identity 

theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1), (c)(2), (c)(11) 

(2006), and was sentenced to two years and one day of 

imprisonment. Rivera noted a timely appeal. His counsel has 

filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 

(1967), conceding that there are no meritorious issues for 

appeal, but questioning the voluntariness of Rivera’s guilty 

plea. Rivera, informed of his right to file a pro se 

supplemental brief, has not done so. The Government has moved 

to dismiss the appeal in part pursuant to the waiver of 

appellate review contained in the plea agreement. We grant the 

motion for partial dismissal, affirm Rivera’s conviction, and 

dismiss his appeal of issues within the scope of the appellate 

waiver.

We review de novo the validity of a defendant’s waiver 

of appellate rights. United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168 

(4th Cir. 2005). “A defendant may waive his right to appeal if 

that waiver is the result of a knowing and intelligent decision 

to forgo the right to appeal.” United States v. Amaya-Portillo, 

423 F.3d 427, 430 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks 

omitted). To determine whether the waiver is knowing and 
3

intelligent, we look to “the totality of the circumstances, 

including the experience and conduct of the accused, as well as 

the accused’s educational background and familiarity with the 

terms of the plea agreement.” United States v. General, 278 

F.3d 389, 400 (4th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks 

omitted). We will enforce a valid waiver as to issues that are

within the scope of the waiver. Blick, 408 F.3d at 168. 

Here, the plea agreement waived Rivera’s right to 

appeal his conviction. Further, both parties agreed to waive 

the right to appeal a sentence of twenty-four months and one 

day, which they agreed was an appropriate sentence under Rule 

11(c)(1)(C). See 18 U.S.C. § 3742(c) (2006) (imposing 

limitations on appeals of sentences under Rule 11(e)(1)(C), now 

11(c)(1)(C)). Our review of the record convinces us that, under 

the totality of the circumstances, Rivera’s waiver was knowing 

and intelligent. Rivera was represented by counsel and assisted 

by an interpreter at the Rule 11 hearing; the district court 

substantially complied with the requirements of Rule 11; and the 

court thoroughly reviewed the waiver provisions with Rivera, 

then thirty-four and with some college education. Therefore, 

Rivera is bound by his appellate waiver.

Our review of the record convinces us that Rivera’s 

guilty plea is knowing, voluntary, and supported by a sufficient 

factual basis. See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116, 
4

119-20 (4th Cir. 1991). In accordance with Anders, we have 

thoroughly examined the entire record for any potentially 

meritorious issues outside the scope of Rivera’s appeal waiver 

and have found none. Therefore we affirm Rivera’s conviction 

pursuant to his knowing and intelligent guilty plea and dismiss 

the appeal as to any other issues. 

This court requires that counsel inform Rivera, in 

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

United States for further review. If Rivera 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 Rivera. 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.

AFFIRMED IN PART;

DISMISSED IN PART