Court Opinion

ID: 9364994
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-20 21:00:28.115078+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:43.175506
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4283      Doc: 33         Filed: 01/19/2023     Pg: 1 of 5

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-4274

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        RUBEN CAMPOS-ARROLLO, a/k/a Frumencio Soto-Pineda,

                             Defendant - Appellant,

                                               No. 22-4283

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        FRUMENCIO SOTO-PINEDA, a/k/a Emilio Gusman, a/k/a Ruben Campos-
        Arrollo,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:20-cr-00489-D-1; 5:21-cr-00053-D-1)

        Submitted: January 17, 2023                                    Decided: January 19, 2023
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4283      Doc: 33         Filed: 01/19/2023    Pg: 2 of 5

        Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Jenna T. Blue, BLUE LLP, Raleigh, 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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4283       Doc: 33           Filed: 01/19/2023   Pg: 3 of 5

        PER CURIAM:

               Ruben Campos-Arrollo * pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to

        conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation

        of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A), 846; and possession with intent to distribute and distribution

        of methamphetamine and aiding and abetting, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),

        (b)(1)(A), 2. The district court sentenced him to 258 months’ imprisonment. At the same

        hearing, the district court also revoked Campos-Arrollo’s term of supervised release

        imposed for a 2010 conviction and sentenced him within the policy statement range to a

        new term of 18 months’ imprisonment. In this consolidated appeal, counsel has filed a

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

        meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether Campos-Arrollo’s 258-month

        sentence for the methamphetamine convictions is reasonable.            Campos-Arrollo was

        informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not done so. The

        Government moves to dismiss Campos-Arrollo’s appeal of his sentence for the

        methamphetamine offenses pursuant to the appellate waiver in his plea agreement. We

        affirm in part and dismiss in part.

               “We review an appellate waiver de novo to determine whether the waiver is

        enforceable” and “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.

               *
                Although this appeal involves two consolidated cases wherein the appellant is
        named Ruben Campos-Arrollo in the lead case and Frumencio Soto-Pineda in the
        secondary case, this opinion refers to the appellant only as Ruben Campos-Arrollo.

                                                       3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4283       Doc: 33          Filed: 01/19/2023      Pg: 4 of 5

        2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). An appellate waiver is valid if the defendant

        enters it “knowingly and intelligently, a determination that we make by considering the

        totality of the circumstances.” Id. “Generally though, 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.” United States v. McCoy, 895 F.3d 358, 362 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal

        quotation marks omitted).

               Our review of the record confirms that Campos-Arrollo knowingly and intelligently

        waived his right to appeal his convictions and sentence for the methamphetamine offenses,

        with limited exceptions not applicable here. We therefore conclude that the waiver is valid

        and enforceable and that the sentencing issues counsel raises fall squarely within the scope

        of the waiver.

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

        found no potentially meritorious issues outside the scope of Campos-Arrollo’s valid

        appellate waiver. Specifically, although the revocation of Campos-Arrollo’s supervised

        release falls outside the scope of the appeal waiver invoked by the Government, we discern

        no error in this revocation or the 18-month revocation sentence imposed by the district

        court. We therefore grant the Government’s motion to dismiss in part and dismiss the

        appeal as to all issues covered by the waiver. We otherwise affirm.

               This court requires that counsel inform Campos-Arrollo, in writing, of the right to

        petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Campos-Arrollo

        requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,

                                                       4
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4283      Doc: 33        Filed: 01/19/2023     Pg: 5 of 5

        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 Campos-Arrollo. 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

                                                    5