UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4282

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

YOALIANG GAO,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior 

District Judge. (1:14-cr-00218-JCC-1)

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

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark Bodner, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellant. Jennifer Gimbert 

Ballantyne, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, 

Virginia, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Yoaliang Gao appeals his conviction for possession of 15 or 

more counterfeit or unauthorized access devices and his 30-month 

sentence. Gao’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. 

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

meritorious issues for appeal and acknowledging Gao’s waiver of 

appellate rights but questioning the application of Sentencing 

Guidelines enhancements for loss amount and for abusing a 

position of trust. Gao did not file 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 Gao’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 

(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). 
3

Upon review of the plea agreement and the transcript of the 

Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing, we conclude that Gao knowingly and 

voluntarily waived his right to appeal his conviction and any 

sentence within the statutory maximum. The sentencing claims

raised on appeal clearly fall within the scope of this broad 

waiver. Therefore, we grant the motion to dismiss and dismiss 

Gao’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 Gao, in writing, of 

the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for 

further review. If Gao 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 Gao. 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