Court Opinion

ID: 9930435
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-06 21:01:14.714653+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:16:26.493980
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4394      Doc: 28         Filed: 02/05/2024     Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-4394

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        CARLOS ARIAS,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:22-cr-00045-BO-RJ-3)

        Submitted: January 30, 2024                                       Decided: February 5, 2024

        Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Ryan M. Gaylord, BELL, DAVIS & PITT, P.A., Winston-Salem, North
        Carolina, for Appellant. David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, Kristine L.
        Fritz, 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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 23-4394      Doc: 28         Filed: 02/05/2024      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Carlos Arias seeks to appeal his conviction and the 240-month sentence imposed

        following his guilty plea, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to conspiracy to distribute

        and possess with intent to distribute 400 grams or more of fentanyl, in violation of

        21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846. Arias’ counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders

        v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there are no meritorious grounds for appeal

        but questioning whether Arias’ guilty plea is valid and whether the sentence—which falls

        within Arias’ advisory Sentencing Guidelines range—is reasonable. Arias did not file a

        pro se supplemental brief after being notified of his right to do so. The Government has

        moved to dismiss the appeal as barred by Arias’ waiver of the right to appeal included in

        the plea agreement.

               Where, as here, the Government seeks to enforce an appeal waiver and the defendant

        has not alleged a breach of the plea agreement, we will enforce the waiver if it is valid and

        the issues raised on appeal fall within its scope. United States v. Boutcher, 998 F.3d 603,

        608 (4th Cir. 2021). Our review of the plea hearing leads us to conclude that Arias

        knowingly and intelligently waived his right to appeal and that the waiver is valid and

        enforceable. * Arias’ challenge to his sentence falls squarely within the waiver’s scope, and

        we discern no basis to decline to enforce the otherwise valid waiver and consider the

               *
                Although there were numerous omissions from the district court’s Fed. R. Crim.
        P. 11 colloquy, it is not apparent that those errors affected Arias’ substantial rights, see
        United States v. Kemp, 88 F.4th 539, 545 (4th Cir. 2023), or that they rendered the appeal
        waiver unknowing or involuntary, see United States v. Carter, 87 F.4th 217, 224 (4th Cir.
        2023).

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4394      Doc: 28          Filed: 02/05/2024     Pg: 3 of 3

        reasonableness of the within-Guidelines sentence. See United States v. Taylor-Sanders, 88

        F.4th 516, 524 (4th Cir. 2023) (distinguishing “claims that a sentence is illegal because the

        district court lacked the authority to issue the sentence (which remain reviewable despite

        an appeal waiver) from claims that a sentence was imposed in violation of law because it

        has otherwise merely been touched by a legal error (in which case we will enforce the

        appeal waiver)” (emphasis and internal quotation marks omitted)). Finally, we have

        reviewed the record in accordance with Anders and have identified no potentially

        meritorious issues that would fall outside the scope of the waiver. Accordingly, we grant

        the Government’s motion to dismiss Arias’ appeal as to all issues within the waiver’s

        scope. We affirm the remainder of the district court’s judgment.

               This court requires that counsel inform Arias, in writing, of the right to petition the

        Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Arias 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 Arias. 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

                                                      3