United States v. Tomas Jaimes-Campos , 442 F. App'x 876 ( 2011 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4168
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TOMAS JAIMES-CAMPOS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon,
Senior District Judge. (3:10-cr-00028-nkm-1)
Submitted: July 27, 2011 Decided: August 10, 2011
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David A. Eustis, EUSTIS & GRAHAM, P.C., Charlottesville,
Virginia, for Appellant. Timothy J. Heaphy, United States
Attorney, Allessandra Stewart, Special Assistant United States
Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tomas Jaimes-Campos pled guilty to conspiracy to
distribute at least 500 grams of methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C.
§ 846 (2006), and was sentenced to a term of 162 months
imprisonment. In his plea agreement, Jaimes-Campos waived his
right to appeal his sentence on any ground, including the
grounds listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (2006). Jaimes-Campos now
seeks to appeal his sentence on the ground that the district
court clearly erred in finding that he failed to accept
responsibility for his offense. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines
Manual § 3E1.1 (2010). The government asserts that the appeal
should be dismissed based on the waiver of appellate rights
contained in Jaimes-Campos’ plea agreement. For the reasons
that follow, we dismiss the appeal.
Whether a waiver of appellate rights in a plea
agreement is enforceable is a question of law reviewed de novo.
United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 626 (4th Cir. 2010).
Where the government seeks to enforce an appeal waiver and there
is no claim that the government breached its obligations under
the plea agreement, this court will enforce the waiver if the
record establishes that (1) the defendant knowingly and
intelligently agreed to waive the right to appeal; and (2) the
issue being appealed is within the scope of the waiver. Id. at
627.
2
Jaimes-Campos does not claim that the waiver is
invalid for any reason. The record of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11
proceeding discloses that the district court fully complied with
the requirements of Rule 11 to ensure that the guilty plea was
knowing and voluntary. See United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55,
58 (2002). The record also establishes that Jaimes-Campos
waived his appeal rights knowingly and intelligently. First,
the waiver provision was set out in detail in the plea agreement
and Jaimes-Campos informed the district court that his attorney
had gone over the plea agreement with him, with the help of an
interpreter, and that he understood it. Second, the court asked
Jaimes-Campos during the Rule 11 hearing whether he was
voluntarily giving up his right to appeal his conviction and
sentence and Jaimes-Campos answered that he was.
We therefore dismiss the appeal. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3