UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-4578

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ARCADIO FIGUEROA BUENO,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at 

Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:23-cr-00133-TDS-1)

Submitted: June 13, 2024 Decided: June 17, 2024

Before RUSHING and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Aaron B. Wellman, IVEY, MCCLELLAN, GATTON & SIEGMUND, 

Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Julie Carol Niemeier, Assistant United States 

Attorney, Kyle David Pousson, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4578 Doc: 26 Filed: 06/17/2024 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Arcadio Figueroa Bueno pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to use of 

a communication facility to facilitate the distribution of methamphetamine, in violation of 

21 U.S.C. § 843(b), (d)(1). Figueroa Bueno’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders 

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning whether Figueroa Bueno’s plea was 

knowing and voluntary and whether his 48-month sentence is reasonable. Figueroa has 

not filed a pro se supplemental brief after being advised of his right to do so.

The Government has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that 

Figueroa Bueno’s appeal is barred by the appeal waiver included in the plea agreement. 

We review de novo the validity of an appeal waiver. United States v. Cohen, 888 F.3d 667, 

678 (4th Cir. 2018). Where, as here, the Government seeks to enforce the appeal waiver 

and has not breached the plea agreement, we will enforce the waiver if it is valid and the 

issue being appealed falls within the waiver’s scope. United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 

621, 627 (4th Cir. 2010).

A defendant validly waives his appeal rights if he agreed to the waiver “knowingly 

and intelligently.” Id. To determine whether a waiver is knowing and intelligent, “we

consider the totality of the circumstances, including the experience and conduct of the 

defendant, his educational background, and his knowledge of the plea agreement and its 

terms.” United States v. McCoy, 895 F.3d 358, 362 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation 

marks omitted). Generally, “if a district court questions a defendant regarding the waiver 

of appellate rights during the [Fed. R. Crim. P.] 11 colloquy and the record indicates that 

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4578 Doc: 26 Filed: 06/17/2024 Pg: 2 of 3
3

the defendant understood the full significance of the waiver, the waiver is valid.” Id.

(internal quotation marks omitted).

Upon review of the plea agreement and the transcript of the Rule 11 hearing, we 

conclude that Figueroa Bueno knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal and 

that his challenges to his sentence fall squarely within the scope of the appellate waiver. 

Although counsel is correct that we may review the validity of Figueroa Bueno’s guilty 

plea, see id. at 364, the district court fully complied with Rule 11 and ascertained that 

Figueroa Bueno’s plea was knowing and voluntary.

Pursuant to Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and have found no 

meritorious issues for appeal that fall outside the scope of the appeal waiver. We therefore 

grant the Government’s motion to dismiss in part and dismiss the appeal as to all issues 

within the waiver’s scope. We affirm the remainder of the district court’s judgment. This 

court requires that counsel inform Figueroa Bueno, in writing, of the right to petition the 

Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Figueroa Bueno 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 Figueroa Bueno.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART,

DISMISSED IN PART

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4578 Doc: 26 Filed: 06/17/2024 Pg: 3 of 3