United States of America v. Aakash Prakash Makwana

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-4590
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
AAKASH PRAKASH MAKWANA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at
Beckley. Frank W. Volk, Chief District Judge. (5:24-cr-00190-1)
Submitted: June 25, 2026 Decided: June 29, 2026
Before BENJAMIN and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Shaina L. Richardson, Morgantown, West Virginia, Christopher G.
Robinson, STEPTOE & JOHNSON PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant.
Jonathan Storage, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Aakash Prakash Makwana pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to
aggravated identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1), and was sentenced to
two years’ imprisonment. On appeal, Makwana’s 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 Makwana’s guilty plea is valid. Although this Court
notified Makwana of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, he has not done so. The
Government has moved to dismiss the appeal as barred by Makwana’s waiver of the right
to appeal included in the plea agreement. Makwana takes no position on the motion. We
dismiss in part and affirm in part.
Initially, Makwana’s appeal waiver does not prevent him from raising a colorable
challenge to the validity of his guilty plea. See United States v. McCoy, 895 F.3d 358, 364
(4th Cir. 2018) (analyzing validity of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing despite waiver). Before
accepting a guilty plea, the district court must conduct a colloquy in which it informs the
defendant of, and determines that he understands, the nature of the charges to which he is
pleading guilty, any mandatory minimum penalty, the maximum penalty he faces, and the
rights he is relinquishing by pleading guilty. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1); United States v.
DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116 (4th Cir. 1991). The court also must ensure that the
defendant’s plea is voluntary and supported by an independent factual basis. Fed. R. Crim.
P. 11(b)(2), (3). Because Makwana did not move to withdraw his plea or otherwise object
during the plea hearing, we review the validity of his plea for plain error. United States v.
Sanya, 774 F.3d 812, 815 (4th Cir. 2014). Our review of the record confirms that Makwana

-- 2 of 4 --

3
consented to proceed before a magistrate judge, who conducted a thorough Rule 11
colloquy. We thus conclude that Makwana’s guilty plea is valid, as it was knowing,
voluntary, and supported by an adequate factual basis.
Next, “we review an appellate waiver de novo to determine its enforceability” and
“will enforce the waiver if it is valid and if the issue being appealed falls within its scope.”
United States v. Carter, 87 F.4th 217, 223-24 (4th Cir. 2023) (citation modified). “An
appellate waiver is valid if the defendant knowingly and voluntarily agreed to it.” Id. at
224 (citation modified). To determine whether a waiver is knowing and voluntary, “we
look to the totality of the circumstances, including the defendant’s experience, conduct,
educational background and knowledge of his plea agreement and its terms.” 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.” United States v. Boutcher, 998 F.3d 603, 608
(4th Cir. 2021). Our review of the record confirms that Makwana knowingly and
voluntarily waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence, with limited exceptions
not applicable here.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case, and we
have found no meritorious grounds for appeal outside the waiver’s scope. 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 Makwana, in writing, of the right to petition
the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Makwana requests that a

-- 3 of 4 --

4
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 Makwana. 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

-- 4 of 4 --