UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4246

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

OMAR FABIAN VALDES GUALTERO, a/k/a Gordo,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District 

Judge. (1:13-cr-00310-GBL-2)

Submitted: November 17, 2015 Decided: November 19, 2015

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edwin S. Booth, SHUTTLEWORTH, RULOFF, SWAIN, HADDAD & MORECOCK, 

P.C., Virginia Beach, Virginia; Maureen Leigh White, Richmond, 

Virginia; for Appellant. Michael Phillip Ben’Ary, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia; Stacey Kyle Luck, 

Special Counsel, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 

Washington, D.C., for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Omar Fabian Valdes Gualtero appeals his conviction and 

sentence for aiding and abetting the murder of an 

internationally protected person, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§§ 2, 1116(a) (2012), and conspiracy to kidnap an 

internationally protected person, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 1201(c) (2012). On appeal, counsel for Valdes Gualtero filed 

a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), 

asserting that there are no meritorious issues for appeal and 

acknowledging Valdes Gualtero’s waiver of appellate rights but 

questioning the application of a sentencing enhancement for 

obstruction of justice. Valdes Gualtero has not filed a pro se 

supplemental brief despite notice of his right to do so. The 

Government has moved to dismiss the appeal as barred by the 

appellate waiver included in Valdes Gualtero’s plea agreement.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, a defendant may waive his 

appellate rights under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (2012). United States 

v. Archie, 771 F.3d 217, 221 (4th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 135 

S. Ct. 1579 (2015). A waiver will preclude an appeal of “a 

specific issue if . . . the waiver is valid and the issue being 

appealed is within the scope of the waiver.” Id. A defendant’s 

waiver is valid if he agreed to it “knowingly and 

intelligently.” United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 627 
3

(4th Cir. 2010). Whether a defendant validly waived his right 

to appeal is a question of law that we review de novo. United 

States v. Copeland, 707 F.3d 522, 528 (4th Cir. 2013). 

Upon review of the plea agreement and the transcript of the 

Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing, we conclude that Valdes Gualtero

knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal his 

conviction and sentence. The sentencing claim raised on appeal 

clearly falls within the scope of this broad waiver. Therefore, 

we grant the motion to dismiss and dismiss Valdes Gualtero’s

appeal. We have reviewed the entire record in accordance with 

Anders and have found no meritorious issues for appeal outside 

the scope of the waiver. 

This court requires that counsel inform Valdes Gualtero, in 

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

United States for further review. If Valdes Gualtero 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 Valdes Gualtero.
4

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