Court Opinion

ID: 9912620
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-22 21:00:30.925507+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:00:56.121491
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4209      Doc: 31         Filed: 12/21/2023     Pg: 1 of 4

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-4209

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        TIMOTHY WILLIAM BAVARO,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Wilmington. Richard E. Myers, II, Chief District Judge. (7:20-cr-00115-M-1)

        Submitted: November 15, 2023                                Decided: December 21, 2023

        Before WILKINSON and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Affirmed in part, dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF:        Mark R. Sigmon, MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS
        GROSSMAN, PLLC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Michael F. Easley, Jr.,
        United States Attorney, David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, John L.
        Gibbons, 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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 23-4209      Doc: 31          Filed: 12/21/2023     Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               Timothy William Bavaro pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to

        two counts of interstate transportation for prostitution, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2421(a).

        On appeal, Bavaro asserts that the district court erred in denying his motion to withdraw

        his guilty plea. He also asserts that the court erred in applying three enhancements to his

        Sentencing Guidelines range. Because Bavaro’s plea agreement includes a provision

        waiving the right to appeal his convictions and sentence on any ground, the Government

        moves to dismiss the appeal as to the sentencing issues raised in Bavaro’s brief. We affirm

        the convictions and grant the Government’s motion to dismiss and dismiss in part the

        appeal.

               We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s denial of a defendant’s motion

        to withdraw his guilty plea. United States v. Nicholson, 676 F.3d 376, 383 (4th Cir. 2012).

        A defendant may withdraw a plea after a court has accepted it if he “can show a fair and

        just reason for requesting the withdrawal.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(B). A court considers

        a variety of factors when deciding whether the defendant has met his burden, including:

        (1) whether he provided credible evidence that his plea was not knowing or voluntary;

        (2) whether he credibly asserted his legal innocence; (3) whether there was a delay between

        entering the plea and moving for withdrawal; (4) whether he had close assistance of

        competent counsel; (5) whether the withdrawal of the plea would prejudice the

        Government; and (6) whether the withdrawal would inconvenience the court and waste

        judicial resources. United States v. Moore, 931 F.2d 245, 248 (4th Cir. 1991). The first,

        second, and fourth factors are generally the most significant, United States v. Sparks, 67

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4209      Doc: 31         Filed: 12/21/2023     Pg: 3 of 4

        F.3d 1145, 1154 (4th Cir. 1995), and “a properly conducted Rule 11 guilty plea

        colloquy . . . raises a strong presumption that the plea is final and binding,” Nicholson,

        676 F.3d at 384 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

               We have carefully reviewed the record and the relevant legal authorities and

        conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Bavaro’s motion to

        withdraw his guilty plea. Bavaro did not show that his guilty plea was not knowing and

        voluntary. Nor did he credibly assert his legal innocence. He contends that he only pleaded

        guilty because counsel advised him that he could easily withdraw his plea after reviewing

        discovery. But Bavaro not only admitted his guilt under oath at the Rule 11 hearing but

        during the months after the hearing in his written communications to the court. He also

        waited over a year after pleading guilty to move to withdraw the plea.

               The Government argues that Bavaro’s sentencing claims are barred by the appellate

        waiver in Bavaro’s plea agreement. “We review an appellate waiver de novo to determine

        whether the waiver is enforceable.”     United States v. Boutcher, 998 F.3d 603, 608

        (4th Cir. 2021). To determine whether a waiver is knowing and voluntary, “we consider

        the totality of the circumstances, including the experience and conduct of the defendant,

        his educational background, and his knowledge of the plea agreement and its terms.”

        United States v. McCoy, 895 F.3d 358, 362 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks

        omitted). When the Government invokes an appeal waiver and has not breached its

        obligations under the plea agreement, we will enforce the waiver if the defendant

        knowingly and voluntarily agreed to waive his right to appeal and the issues raised on

        appeal fall within the scope of the waiver. Boutcher, 998 F.3d at 608.

                                                    3
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4209      Doc: 31          Filed: 12/21/2023     Pg: 4 of 4

               Bavaro concedes that, if this Court concludes that his guilty plea was knowing and

        voluntary, the appeal waiver is enforceable. We see nothing in the record indicating that

        Bavaro did not understand the significance of the appeal waiver. And Bavaro’s sentencing

        issues fall squarely within the scope of his waiver of appellate rights.

               Accordingly, we affirm the convictions, grant the Government’s motion to dismiss,

        and dismiss Bavaro’s appeal from his sentence. 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

                                                      4