Court Opinion

ID: 9397977
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-27 21:00:32.932578+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:28.947128
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4568      Doc: 23         Filed: 05/26/2023     Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 21-4568

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        MARK DANIEL BENAVIDEZ, a/k/a Droopy,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (5:19-cr-00337-BR-1)

        Submitted: May 15, 2023                                           Decided: May 26, 2023

        Before AGEE, DIAZ, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: G. Alan DuBois, Federal Public Defender, Eric Joseph Brignac, Chief
        Appellant Attorney, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh, North
        Carolina, for Appellant. David A. Bragdon, 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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 21-4568       Doc: 23         Filed: 05/26/2023      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Mark Daniel Benavidez seeks to appeal his Guidelines range sentence after pleading

        guilty to transporting a person in interstate commerce to engage in prostitution, in violation

        of 18 U.S.C. § 2421(a). On appeal, Benavidez’s attorney has filed a brief pursuant to

        Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising two sentencing issues but concluding

        that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal. The Government has moved to dismiss

        the appeal as barred by Benavidez’s appeal waiver. Benavidez was notified of his right to

        file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. We dismiss the appeal.

               “When the government seeks to enforce an appeal waiver and has not breached the

        plea agreement, we will enforce the waiver if it is valid and if the issue being appealed falls

        within the scope of the waiver.” United States v. Boutcher, 998 F.3d 603, 608 (4th Cir.

        2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). “A ‘valid’ appeal waiver is one entered by the

        defendant knowingly and intelligently, a determination that we make by considering the

        totality of the circumstances.” Id. “When a district court questions a defendant during a

        Rule 11 hearing regarding an appeal waiver and the record shows that the defendant

        understood the import of his concessions, we generally will hold that the waiver is valid.”

        Id. We review this issue de novo. Id.

               Upon our review of the record, we conclude Benavidez knowingly and voluntarily

        waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence, and the issues raised on appeal fall

        within the scope of the waiver. Moreover, we have reviewed the record for any potentially

        meritorious issues that might fall outside the waiver and have found none.

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4568      Doc: 23          Filed: 05/26/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

               Accordingly, we grant the Government’s motion to dismiss the appeal. This court

        requires that counsel inform Benavidez, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme

        Court of the United States for further review. If Benavidez 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 Benavidez. 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

                                                      3