Court Opinion

ID: 9911810
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-20 21:00:38.70984+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:54:38.487594
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4465      Doc: 24         Filed: 12/19/2023     Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-4465

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        MAYER OLEDA NUNEZ, a/k/a Looney,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:22-cr-00303-D-RN-1)

        Submitted: December 14, 2023                                Decided: December 19, 2023

        Before GREGORY and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Marilyn G. Ozer, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, for Appellant. David A.
        Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, Lucy Partain Brown, 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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 23-4465      Doc: 24         Filed: 12/19/2023     Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Mayer Oleda Nunez appeals his conviction and the 216-month sentence imposed

        following his guilty plea to distribution of 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, in

        violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A). On appeal, Nunez’s counsel has filed a brief

        pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no

        meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning the district court’s calculation of the

        Sentencing Guidelines range. Though notified of his right to do so, Nunez has not filed a

        pro se supplemental brief. The Government now moves to dismiss based on the appeal

        waiver contained in Nunez’s plea agreement. For the reasons that follow, we affirm in part

        and dismiss in part.

               We review the validity of an appeal waiver de novo. United States v. Thornsbury,

        670 F.3d 532, 537 (4th Cir. 2012). An appeal waiver “preclude[s] a defendant from

        appealing a specific issue if the record establishes that the waiver is valid and the issue

        being appealed is within the scope of the waiver.” United States v. Archie, 771 F.3d 217,

        221 (4th Cir. 2014). A defendant validly waives his appeal rights if he agreed to the waiver

        “knowingly and intelligently.” United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 627 (4th Cir.

        2010). “Generally, if a district court questions a defendant regarding the waiver of

        appellate rights during the [Fed. R. Crim. P.] 11 colloquy and the record indicates that the

        defendant understood the full significance of the waiver, the waiver is valid.” Thornsbury,

        670 F.3d at 537.

               Our review of the record confirms that Nunez knowingly and intelligently executed

        the appeal waiver, the terms of which broadly preclude him from appealing his conviction

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4465         Doc: 24        Filed: 12/19/2023      Pg: 3 of 3

        and sentence. Thus, we grant the Government’s motion to dismiss as to any issues falling

        within the waiver’s scope, including the Guidelines issues raised by Anders counsel.

               In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have

        found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore grant the Government’s motion to

        dismiss in part, dismiss the appeal as to all issues within the waiver’s scope, and affirm the

        remainder of the judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Nunez, in writing, of

        the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Nunez

        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 Nunez.

               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

                                                       3