UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-5166

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RAFAEL OMAR VILLEGAS-MARTINEZ, a/k/a Lunar,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 12-4012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MARIO MOLINA-VALLADAREZ, a/k/a Tiger,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District 

of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. 

(8:09-cr-00471-RWT-3; 8:09-cr-00471-RWT-1)

Submitted: November 6, 2012 Decided: November 14, 2012

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
2

Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam 

opinion.

Marc G. Hall, HALL & CHO, PC, Rockville, Maryland; Elita C. 

Amato, LAW OFFICE OF ELITA C. AMATO, Arlington, Virginia, for 

Appellants. William Moomau, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES 

ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Rafael Omar Villegas-Martinez (“Martinez”) and Mario 

Molina-Valladarez (“Valladarez”) pled guilty, pursuant to plea 

agreements, to conspiracy to participate in a racketeering 

enterprise, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) (2006). 

Martinez was sentenced to 276 months’ imprisonment, and 

Valladarez was sentenced to 293 months’ imprisonment. On 

appeal, counsel have filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there are no 

meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether the 

district court properly considered and applied the 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a) (2006) factors. The Government has filed a motion to 

dismiss this appeal in part on the ground that Appellants 

knowingly and intelligently waived their right to appeal their 

convictions and sentences. For the reasons that follow, we 

dismiss in part and affirm in part.

In their plea agreements, Appellants waived their 

right to appeal their convictions and sentences, except to the 

extent that their sentences exceeded the Guidelines range based 

upon an offense level of thirty-seven. A defendant may waive 

the right to appeal if that waiver is knowing and intelligent. 

United States v. Poindexter, 492 F.3d 263, 270 (4th Cir. 2007). 

Generally, if the district court fully questions a defendant 

regarding the waiver of his right to appeal during the Fed. R. 
4

Crim. P. 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). 

A review of the record reveals that the court determined 

Appellants were competent to plead guilty, had the opportunity 

to discuss their plea agreements with counsel, entered their 

guilty pleas in the absence of threats or force, and understood 

the terms of their appeal waivers regarding their sentences. 

Thus, we conclude that Appellants validly waived their right to 

appeal their sentences and that the claims raised on appeal fall 

within the scope of their waivers. United States v. Blick, 408 

F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir. 2005) (providing standard). 

Accordingly, we grant the Government’s motion to dismiss in part 

and dismiss the appeal of Appellants’ sentences.

The record reveals, however, that the court did not 

ensure Appellants understood the terms of their appeal waivers 

regarding their convictions. Thus, we deny in part the 

Government’s motion to dismiss the appeal of Appellants’ 

convictions. Nevertheless, in accordance with Anders, we have 

reviewed the record in this case and have found no unwaived and 

potentially meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm 

Appellants’ convictions. 

This court requires that counsel inform Appellants, in 

writing, of their right to petition the Supreme Court of the 
5

United States for further review. If Appellants request that a 

petition be filed, but counsel believe 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 Appellants. 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.

DISMISSED IN PART;

AFFIRMED IN PART