UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-4209

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TIMOTHY WILLIAM BAVARO,

Defendant - Appellant.

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

Wilmington. Richard E. Myers, II, Chief District Judge. (7:20-cr-00115-M-1)

Submitted: November 15, 2023 Decided: December 21, 2023

Before WILKINSON and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Affirmed in part, dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Mark R. Sigmon, MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS 

GROSSMAN, PLLC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Michael F. Easley, Jr., 

United States Attorney, David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, John L. 

Gibbons, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES 

ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4209 Doc: 31 Filed: 12/21/2023 Pg: 1 of 4
2

PER CURIAM:

Timothy William Bavaro pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to

two counts of interstate transportation for prostitution, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2421(a). 

On appeal, Bavaro asserts that the district court erred in denying his motion to withdraw 

his guilty plea. He also asserts that the court erred in applying three enhancements to his 

Sentencing Guidelines range. Because Bavaro’s plea agreement includes a provision 

waiving the right to appeal his convictions and sentence on any ground, the Government 

moves to dismiss the appeal as to the sentencing issues raised in Bavaro’s brief. We affirm 

the convictions and grant the Government’s motion to dismiss and dismiss in part the 

appeal.

We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s denial of a defendant’s motion 

to withdraw his guilty plea. United States v. Nicholson, 676 F.3d 376, 383 (4th Cir. 2012). 

A defendant may withdraw a plea after a court has accepted it if he “can show a fair and 

just reason for requesting the withdrawal.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(B). A court considers 

a variety of factors when deciding whether the defendant has met his burden, including: 

(1) whether he provided credible evidence that his plea was not knowing or voluntary; 

(2) whether he credibly asserted his legal innocence; (3) whether there was a delay between 

entering the plea and moving for withdrawal; (4) whether he had close assistance of 

competent counsel; (5) whether the withdrawal of the plea would prejudice the 

Government; and (6) whether the withdrawal would inconvenience the court and waste 

judicial resources. United States v. Moore, 931 F.2d 245, 248 (4th Cir. 1991). The first, 

second, and fourth factors are generally the most significant, United States v. Sparks, 67 

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4209 Doc: 31 Filed: 12/21/2023 Pg: 2 of 4
3

F.3d 1145, 1154 (4th Cir. 1995), and “a properly conducted Rule 11 guilty plea 

colloquy . . . raises a strong presumption that the plea is final and binding,” Nicholson, 

676 F.3d at 384 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

We have carefully reviewed the record and the relevant legal authorities and 

conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Bavaro’s motion to

withdraw his guilty plea. Bavaro did not show that his guilty plea was not knowing and 

voluntary. Nor did he credibly assert his legal innocence. He contends that he only pleaded 

guilty because counsel advised him that he could easily withdraw his plea after reviewing 

discovery. But Bavaro not only admitted his guilt under oath at the Rule 11 hearing but 

during the months after the hearing in his written communications to the court. He also 

waited over a year after pleading guilty to move to withdraw the plea.

The Government argues that Bavaro’s sentencing claims are barred by the appellate 

waiver in Bavaro’s plea agreement. “We review an appellate waiver de novo to determine 

whether the waiver is enforceable.” United States v. Boutcher, 998 F.3d 603, 608 

(4th Cir. 2021). To determine whether a waiver is knowing and voluntary, “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). When the Government invokes an appeal waiver and has not breached its 

obligations under the plea agreement, we will enforce the waiver if the defendant 

knowingly and voluntarily agreed to waive his right to appeal and the issues raised on 

appeal fall within the scope of the waiver. Boutcher, 998 F.3d at 608.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4209 Doc: 31 Filed: 12/21/2023 Pg: 3 of 4
4

Bavaro concedes that, if this Court concludes that his guilty plea was knowing and 

voluntary, the appeal waiver is enforceable. We see nothing in the record indicating that 

Bavaro did not understand the significance of the appeal waiver. And Bavaro’s sentencing 

issues fall squarely within the scope of his waiver of appellate rights.

Accordingly, we affirm the convictions, grant the Government’s motion to dismiss, 

and dismiss Bavaro’s appeal from his sentence. 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: 23-4209 Doc: 31 Filed: 12/21/2023 Pg: 4 of 4