United States of America v. Francisco Aguilar-Arevalos

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-4521
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
FRANCISCO AGUILAR-AREVALOS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:20-cr-00193-D-1)
Submitted: June 30, 2022 Decided: July 13, 2022
Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed in part, dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Francisco Aguilar-Arevalos pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to
possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c)(1)(A)(i) (Count 1), and possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of 18
U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (Count 2). Under the plea agreement, Aguilar-Arevalos
agreed to waive his right to appeal his convictions and sentence. The district court
sentenced Aguilar-Arevalos to 120 months’ imprisonment on Count 2, and a consecutive
60 months’ imprisonment on Count 1, for a total term of 180 months’ imprisonment.
Aguilar-Arevalos timely appealed.
Counsel for Aguilar-Arevalos 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
the substantive reasonableness of Aguilar-Arevalos’ upward variant sentence. Although
informed of his right to do so, Aguilar-Arevalos has not filed a pro se supplemental brief.
The Government moves to dismiss the appeal as barred by the appellate waiver included
in Aguilar-Arevalos’ plea agreement. We affirm in part and dismiss in part.
We review the validity of an appeal waiver de novo and “will enforce the waiver if
it is valid and the issue[s] appealed [are] within the scope of the waiver.” United States v.
Adams, 814 F.3d 178, 182 (4th Cir. 2016). Generally, if the district court fully questions a
defendant regarding the waiver of his right to appeal during a plea colloquy performed in
accordance with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, and the record shows that the defendant understood
the waiver’s significance, the waiver is both valid and enforceable. United States v.
Thornsbury, 670 F.3d 532, 537 (4th Cir. 2012). Our review of the record confirms that

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Aguilar-Arevalos knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal. We therefore
conclude that the waiver is valid.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have
found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore grant in part the Government’s
motion to dismiss and dismiss the appeal as to all issues within the waiver’s scope. We
affirm the remainder of the judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Aguilar-
Arevalos, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Aguilar-Arevalos 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 Aguilar-Arevalos. 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

-- 3 of 3 --