United States v. Bilal Siddiqui ( 2021 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-4568
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BILAL MOHAMMAD SIDDIQUI,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Catherine C. Blake, Senior District Judge. (1:19-cr-00322-CCB-1)
Submitted: June 24, 2021 Decided: June 28, 2021
Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed in part, dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gerald C. Ruter, LAW OFFICES OF GERALD C. RUTER, P.C., Baltimore, Maryland,
for Appellant. Jeffrey J. Izant, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Bilal Mohammad Siddiqui pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to
two counts of sexual exploitation of a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a), (e), and
one count of cyberstalking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2261(A)(2)(b), (b)(5). The district
court imposed a 288-month sentence and Siddiqui appealed. Counsel has filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), concluding that there are no
meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning the scope of Siddiqui’s waiver of appellate
rights and whether his sentence is procedurally reasonable. Although advised of his right
to file a pro se brief, Siddiqui has not done so. The Government has moved to dismiss the
appeal based on the waiver of appellate rights in Siddiqui’s plea agreement. We affirm in
part and dismiss in part.
Where, as here, the Government seeks to enforce an appeal waiver and Siddiqui has
not alleged a breach of the plea agreement, we will enforce the waiver if it is valid and the
issue being appealed falls within the scope of the waiver. United States v. Dillard, 891
F.3d 151, 156 (4th Cir. 2018). Siddiqui does not contest that he knowingly and intelligently
waived his right to appeal, see United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 627 (4th Cir. 2010),
and our review of the plea hearing leads us to conclude that the waiver is valid and
enforceable. Although counsel questions the scope of Siddiqui’s waiver of appellate rights,
counsel concedes that a factual basis supported his plea and there is no reason to believe
that the statutes to which Siddiqui pled guilty were unconstitutional. Moreover, Siddiqui’s
challenge to the procedural reasonableness of his sentence falls within the scope of the
waiver.
2
In accordance with Anders, we have thoroughly reviewed the entire record in this
case and have found no meritorious grounds for appeal that fall outside the scope of the
waiver. Accordingly, we grant the Government’s motion to dismiss Siddiqui’s appeal of
his sentence and affirm the remainder of the district court’s judgment. This court requires
that counsel inform Siddiqui, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Siddiqui 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 Siddiqui.
We dispense with oral argument because that 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