United States of America v. Ruben Campos-Arrollo, a/k/a Frumencio Soto-Pineda

UNPUBLISHED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

-- 1 of 5 --

2
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Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 of 5 --

3
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 of 5 --

4
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 of 5 --

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 of 5 --