UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-5044

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

ANTHONY J. MARCANTONI, a/k/a Mr. Purple, a/k/a The Italian,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

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

(8:10-cr-00777-RWT-15)

Submitted: April 10, 2014 Decided: April 25, 2014

Before MOTZ, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robin M. Earnest, LAW OFFICE OF ROBIN EARNEST, Riverdale, 

Maryland, for Appellant. Mara Zusman Greenberg, Deborah A. 

Johnston, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greenbelt, 

Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Anthony J. Marcantoni pleaded guilty to conspiracy to 

distribute and possess with intent to distribute marijuana, in 

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2012). The district court 

sentenced Marcantoni to 121 months of imprisonment. Marcantoni 

filed a timely notice of appeal. Five months later, Marcantoni 

filed a motion pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3504 (2012), to discover 

whether the Government had intercepted any communications 

between Marcantoni’s counsel and counsel for his codefendants. 

The district court denied Marcantoni’s motion and Marcantoni did 

not file a notice of appeal of that order. On appeal, 

Marcantoni argues that the district court erred in denying his 

motion. The Government has moved to dismiss the appeal based on 

the waiver of appellate rights contained in the plea agreement. 

For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the 

district court and deny as moot the motion to dismiss.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, a defendant may waive 

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

States v. Wiggins, 905 F.2d 51, 53 (4th Cir. 1990). A waiver 

will preclude appeal of a specific issue if the waiver is valid 

and the issue is within the scope of the waiver. United 

States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir. 2005). The 

question of whether a defendant validly waived his right to 
3

appeal is a question of law that this court reviews de novo. 

Id. at 168.

Here, the appellate waiver included any appeal of the 

conviction and sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742 and 28 

U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), except a sentence above the advisory 

Guidelines range. While we conclude that Marcantoni knowingly 

and intelligently agreed to waive his right to appeal, 

Marcantoni has not challenged his conviction or sentence on 

appeal. Rather, Marcantoni challenges only the district court’s 

order denying his post-judgment motion pursuant to § 3504. As 

Marcantoni failed to file a notice of appeal of the district 

court’s order denying his motion, however, that order is not 

before this court.

Accordingly, we affirm Marcantoni’s conviction and 

sentence, and deny as moot the Government’s motion to dismiss 

the appeal. 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