UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-5199

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ARSEN BEDZHANYAN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, 

Jr., District Judge. (2:11-cr-00193-1)

Submitted: May 22, 2012 Decided: June 12, 2012

Before DUNCAN, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam 

opinion.

Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne, 

Appellate Counsel, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. 

Meredith George Thomas, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, 

Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Pursuant to a written plea agreement, Arsen Bedzhanyan 

pled guilty to a single count of aiding and abetting aggravated 

identity theft, violating 18 U.S.C. § 1028A (2006), and was 

sentenced to eighteen months’ imprisonment. Counsel for 

Bedzhanyan has now submitted a brief in accordance with 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that he has

divined no meritorious grounds for appeal but inquiring whether 

Bedzhanyan’s sentence is unreasonable. The Government has moved 

to dismiss the appeal of Bedzhanyan’s sentence based on his 

waiver of appellate rights. Bedzhanyan has declined to file a 

pro se supplemental brief. We have reviewed the record, and we 

dismiss in part and affirm in part.

A criminal defendant may, in a valid plea agreement, 

waive the right to appeal under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (2006). United 

States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 627 (4th Cir. 2010). We review

the validity of an appellate waiver de novo and will enforce the 

waiver if it is valid and the issue appealed is within the scope 

of that waiver. United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th 

Cir. 2005). Generally, if the district court fully questions a 

defendant regarding the waiver of his right to appeal during the 

plea colloquy performed in accordance with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, 

the waiver is both valid and enforceable. Manigan, 592 F.3d at 

627; United States v. Johnson, 410 F.3d 137, 151 (4th Cir. 
3

2005). Our review of the record convinces us that Bedzhanyan 

knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to appeal his 

sentence. We therefore grant the Government’s motion to dismiss 

the appeal of Bedzhanyan’s sentence.

Although Bedzhanyan’s appeal waiver insulates his 

sentence from appellate review, the waiver does not prohibit our 

review of his conviction pursuant to Anders. Accordingly, we 

have reviewed the remainder of the record in this case and have 

found no meritorious issues for review. We therefore affirm 

Bedzhanyan’s conviction.

This court requires that counsel inform Bedzhanyan, in 

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

United States for further review. If Bedzhanyan 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 Bedzhanyan.

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