United States v. Andysheh Ayatollahi
676 F. App'x 151
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Appellant Andysheh Ayatollahi pled guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement to conspiracy to commit financial institution fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1349) and making/subscribing a false tax return (26 U.S.C. § 7206(1)).
- He was sentenced to 74 months’ imprisonment and appealed. Counsel filed an Anders brief raising whether the plea and sentence were valid but asserted no meritorious issues.
- The Government moved to dismiss the appeal based on an appellate-waiver provision in Ayatollahi’s plea agreement.
- The district court conducted a Rule 11 colloquy; Ayatollahi acknowledged reading and understanding the plea agreement, his appellate waiver, and stated he was satisfied with counsel.
- The Fourth Circuit reviewed de novo whether the appellate waiver was knowing and voluntary and whether the issues on appeal fell within its scope.
- The Fourth Circuit granted the Government’s motion, dismissed the appeal, and directed counsel to notify Ayatollahi of his right to seek Supreme Court review and the procedure for filing a certiorari petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of appellate waiver (knowing and intelligent) | Ayatollahi implicitly challenges plea acceptance / waiver validity via Anders issues | Government argues waiver was knowing and voluntary given plea agreement and Rule 11 colloquy | Waiver valid: totality of circumstances (education, acknowledgment, Rule 11) shows knowing, voluntary waiver |
| Scope of waiver — do raised issues fall within waiver | Challenge to validity of guilty plea and sentence | Government: those issues are encompassed by the waiver language | Issues fall within waiver; appeal barred |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Copeland, 707 F.3d 522 (4th Cir. 2013) (standard of de novo review for appeal-waiver validity)
- United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162 (4th Cir. 2005) (two-part test for enforcing appellate waivers)
- United States v. General, 278 F.3d 389 (4th Cir. 2002) (factors for assessing whether waiver was knowing and intelligent)
- United States v. Johnson, 410 F.3d 137 (4th Cir. 2005) (effect of Rule 11 colloquy on waiver validity)
- United States v. Wessells, 936 F.3d 165 (4th Cir. 1991) (importance of unambiguous waiver language and courtroom questioning)