UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-5144

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

ALDO CESAR RUIZ, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior 

District Judge. (5:08-cr-00126-F-1) 

Submitted: January 14, 2010 Decided: February 16, 2010 

Before MICHAEL, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam 

opinion. 

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois, 

Assistant Federal Public Defender, James E. Todd, Jr., Research 

and Writing Specialist, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. 

Anne Margaret Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, 

North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

 Aldo Cesar Ruiz pled guilty pursuant to a written plea 

agreement to one count of manufacturing child pornography in 

violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2251(a) (West Supp. 2009), and was 

sentenced to 300 months of imprisonment. On appeal, counsel 

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

(1967), asserting there are no meritorious grounds for appeal 

but raising the following issue: whether the district court 

imposed an unreasonable sentence by failing to consider all the 

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, failing to adequately 

explain the sentence imposed, and treating the unreasonably high 

advisory Sentencing Guidelines range as presumptively 

reasonable. Ruiz, informed of his right to file a pro se 

supplemental brief, has not done so. The Government has filed a 

motion to dismiss, as waived, the appeal of Ruiz’s sentence. 

For the reasons that follow, we dismiss the appeal of Ruiz’s 

sentence and affirm his conviction. 

 Pursuant to a plea agreement, a defendant may waive 

his appellate rights under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (2006). United 

States v. Wiggins, 905 F.2d 51, 52 (4th Cir. 1990). A waiver 

will preclude appeal of specific issues if the waiver is valid 

and the issues are within the scope of the waiver. United 

States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir. 2005). Whether a 

2 
defendant validly waived his right to appeal is a question of 

law that we review de novo. Id. 

 “The validity of an appeal waiver depends on whether 

the defendant knowingly and intelligently agreed to waive the 

right to appeal.” Id. at 169. To determine whether a waiver is 

knowing and intelligent, this court examines “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 and citation omitted). Generally, if the 

district court specifically questions a defendant regarding the 

waiver of his right to appeal during the Rule 11 colloquy, the 

waiver is both valid and enforceable. United States v. Johnson, 

410 F.3d 137, 151 (4th Cir. 2005); United States v. Wessells, 

936 F.2d 165, 167-68 (4th Cir. 1991). 

 We have reviewed the record and conclude that Ruiz 

knowingly and intelligently entered into the plea agreement and 

understood the appellate waiver, and that the issue raised by 

counsel is within the scope of that waiver. Ruiz waived his 

right to appeal any sentence not in excess of a sentence imposed 

within the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range, and the 

sentence imposed was within that range. Therefore, we grant the 

Government’s motion to dismiss the appeal of Ruiz’s sentence. 

3 
4 

 In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire 

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for 

appeal. Accordingly, we affirm Ruiz’s conviction. This court 

requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his 

right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for 

further review. If the client requests that a petition be 

filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be 

frivolous, then counsel may move this court for leave to 

withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that 

a copy thereof was served on the client. 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 IN PART; 

AFFIRMED IN PART