Court Opinion

ID: 996285
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 00:48:37.098991+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:10:43.590218
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.
                                                                    No. 98-4016
SILVERIO CALDERON, a/k/a Juan
David Torres,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem.
Richard C. Erwin, Senior District Judge.
(CR-97-116)

Submitted: August 18, 1998

Decided: September 9, 1998

Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Joseph L. Anderson, James J. Fradenburg, JOSEPH L. ANDERSON
& ASSOCIATES, P.C., Kernersville, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Walter C. Holton, Jr., United States Attorney, Michael F. Joseph,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Silverio Calderon, an illegal alien,
pled guilty to charges of obstruction of justice in violation of 18
U.S.C.A. § 1503 (West Supp. 1998). After enhancing Calderon's base
offense by three levels pursuant to USSG § 2J1.2(b)(2),1 the district
court sentenced Calderon to twenty-four months' imprisonment, to be
followed by deportation. Calderon appeals, alleging that the charges
against him were the result of an unlawful search of his home and that
the district court erred in enhancing his offense level at sentencing.
Because we find that Calderon waived his right to appeal these issues,
we dismiss his appeal.

The facts underlying the charge of obstruction of justice are
straightforward and not in dispute. Over the course of six years, and
in the face of several criminal prosecutions, Calderon identified him-
self to state and federal authorities by two aliases. Most recently,
while in federal court on firearms charges, Calderon identified him-
self as "Juan David Torres," a native of Puerto Rico.

However, in 1997, authorities in North Carolina obtained a death
certificate and other evidence indicating that Juan David Torres died
in New York City in 1987. Based on this information, law enforce-
ment officers obtained a warrant and searched Calderon's home.
There they discovered evidence, including a Dominican passport,
indicating that the man previously identified as Juan David Torres
was actually Calderon, a native of the Dominican Republic.

A grand jury indicted Calderon for obstruction of justice based on
Calderon's alleged false identification of himself in federal court.
Several months later, Calderon pled guilty to this charge pursuant to
_________________________________________________________________
1 U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (1997).

                    2
a written plea agreement. In relevant part, that agreement provided
that Calderon would waive any objection to the Government's case
against him,2 and that he "expressly waive[d] the right to appeal what-
ever sentence is imposed on any ground, including any appeal right
conferred by Title 18, United States Code, Section 3742(a). . . ."3
After Calderon pled guilty pursuant to this agreement, the district
court sentenced him to imprisonment and deportation. This appeal
followed.

Despite the clear and unequivocal waiver of the right to appeal in
his plea agreement, Calderon now seeks review of certain aspects of
both the Government's case against him and the sentence imposed by
the district court. However, we are satisfied that the issues raised are
within the scope of Calderon's waiver of the right to appeal, and
therefore we decline to consider the merits of these claims.

The relevant language in the plea agreement indicates that Calde-
ron waived the right to appeal both pre-sentencing constitutional
claims and any claim regarding a sentence that is within the scope of
the district court's discretion under the Sentencing Guidelines.4 In
addition, the district court's Rule 11 colloquy clearly shows that Cal-
deron's waiver of these rights was knowing and voluntary.5

Therefore, we need only determine whether the claims raised here
are within the scope of this waiver. We conclude that they are. First,
Calderon's claim that the Government violated his Fourth Amend-
ment rights in searching his home is clearly waived by Section 3 of
the plea agreement, which states that Calderon waived all "constitu-
tional rights which attend a defendant on trial in a criminal case."6
_________________________________________________________________
2 Plea Agreement at 2.
3 Id. at 3.
4 See United States v. Marin, 961 F.2d 493, 496 (4th Cir. 1992) (waiver
of right to appeal sentence encompasses errors in application of Sentenc-
ing Guidelines; only sentences imposed in excess of maximum penalty
or based on use of impermissible factor are beyond the scope of such a
waiver).
5 See J.A. at 192-94.

6 Plea Agreement at 2.

                     3
Second, Calderon's challenge to his sentence is based on allegations
that the district court erred in enhancing his base offense by three
levels and deciding not to depart downwardly from the Sentencing
Guidelines in computing Calderon's sentence. However, both were
matters within the discretion of the sentencing court. As such, they
fall within the range of issues that are included within a knowing and
voluntary waiver of the right to appeal a sentence. 7 Therefore, appel-
late review of these issues is foreclosed.

Accordingly, we dismiss Calderon's appeal from his conviction
and sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court, and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
_________________________________________________________________
7 See Marin, 961 F.2d at 496.

                    4