Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ismail S. OMARA, a/k/a Omara S. Ismail, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-11-06
Citations: 545 F. App'x 261
Docket Number: No. 13-4437
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ismail S. OMARA, a/k/a Omara S. Ismail, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 545
Pages: 261–262

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ismail S. OMARA, a/k/a Omara S. Ismail, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-4437.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 25, 2013.
Decided: Nov. 6, 2013.
Nicholas J. Compton, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Kristen M. Leddy, Research and Writing Specialist, Martins-burg, West Virginia, for Appellant, for Appellant. John Castle Parr, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ismail Ornara seeks to appeal his sentence for bank fraud. See 18 U.S.C. § 1344 (2006). Ornara pled guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement and was sentenced to time served and five years of supervised release. The district court ordered Ornara to pay restitution in the amount of $25,152.32. On appeal, counsel for Ornara filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), asserting there are no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning the reasonableness of the term of supervised release. Ornara filed a pro se supplemental brief echoing the claim raised by counsel. The Government has moved to dismiss the appeal as barred by Omara's waiver of the right to appeal included in the plea agreement. We affirm in part and dismiss in part.
Our review of the record leads us to conclude that Ornara knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal his sentence. See United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168-69 (4th Cir.2005). The issue raised by Ornara and by his counsel falls within the scope of that waiver. Accordingly, because Ornara knowingly and voluntarily entered into the waiver and the Government now seeks to enforce it, we grant the motion to dismiss in part and dismiss all sentencing issues that a defendant may lawfully waive. As to any remaining issues, we have reviewed the entire record in accordance with Anders and have found no unwaived meritorious issues. We therefore affirm the district court's judgment as to all issues not encompassed by Omara's valid waiver of appellate rights.
This Court requires that counsel inform Ornara, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Ornara 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 Ornara. 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.