United States of America v. Marcus Alexander Waldo, Jr.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-4219
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARCUS ALEXANDER WALDO, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Elizabeth City. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (2:20-cr-00029-D-1)
Submitted: June 30, 2022 Decided: July 19, 2022
Before KING and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: G. Alan DuBois, Federal Public Defender, Eric Joseph Brignac, Chief
Appellate Attorney, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellant. David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, Jennifer P.
May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Joshua L. Rogers, Assistant United States
Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Marcus Alexander Waldo, Jr., seeks to appeal his sentence of 162 months following
his guilty plea to interference with commerce by robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1951(a), (b)(1), and brandishing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). On appeal, Waldo’s counsel has filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious
issues for appeal but questioning whether the district court should have downwardly varied
from the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range to account for the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
factors. Waldo was notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done
so. The Government has moved to dismiss the appeal pursuant to the waiver in Waldo’s
plea agreement. We dismiss in part and affirm in part.
We review the validity of an appeal waiver de novo. United States v. Dillard, 891
F.3d 151, 156 (4th Cir. 2018). “[W]e will enforce the waiver if it is valid and the issue
appealed is within the scope of the waiver.” United States v. Adams, 814 F.3d 178, 182
(4th Cir. 2016). A waiver is valid if it is knowing and voluntary. Id. Waldo does not
dispute that he knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal, and our review of the
plea hearing leads us to conclude that the waiver is valid and enforceable. See United
States v. McCoy, 895 F.3d 358, 362 (4th Cir. 2018).
Waldo’s challenge to the reasonableness of his sentence falls squarely within the
scope of the waiver. Moreover, we have thoroughly reviewed the record in accordance
with Anders and have identified no potentially meritorious issues that would fall outside
the waiver’s broad scope. Accordingly, we grant the Government’s motion to dismiss in

-- 2 of 3 --

3
part, dismiss the appeal as to all issues within the waiver’s scope, and affirm the remainder
of the judgment.
This court requires that counsel inform Waldo, in writing, of the right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Waldo 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 Waldo.
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 of 3 --