United States v. Orbin Mendoza-Argueta, 701 F. App'x 218

Mendoza pled guilty under a written plea agreement to being an alien in possession of firearms, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5), and was sentenced to 42 months’ imprisonment.
The plea agreement contained a broad waiver of appellate rights, including the right to appeal conviction and any sentence-related issues.
At the Rule 11 colloquy Mendoza stated he: was 37, had a high-school equivalent education, was not impaired, had read and discussed the plea agreement with counsel, was satisfied with counsel, and understood the appellate-waiver term.
Mendoza’s counsel filed an Anders brief arguing the sentence was unreasonable; Mendoza filed a pro se supplemental brief challenging both conviction and sentence.
The government moved to dismiss the appeal based on the appellate-waiver provision; Mendoza opposed. The court reviewed waiver validity de novo and applied the two-part Blick test.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Mendoza knowingly and intelligently waived his right to appeal	Mendoza contends his conviction/sentence are invalid and challenges the plea/sentence on the merits	Government argues the colloquy, plea agreement, and Mendoza’s statements show a knowing, voluntary waiver	Waiver was knowing and voluntary — Rule 11 colloquy and written acknowledgment support validity
Whether the issues raised fall within the scope of the appellate waiver	Mendoza seeks to challenge both conviction and sentence reasonableness	Government argues the challenges (conviction validity and sentence reasonableness) are squarely within the waiver language	Issues fall within the waiver’s scope; appeal dismissed
Whether any meritorious Anders issues remain to justify review	Counsel raised sentencing unreasonableness under Anders	Government moved to dismiss based on waiver; court nonetheless reviewed the record	Under Anders review, court found no meritorious issues; dismissal appropriate

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: knowing waiver and scope of issues)
United States v. General, 278 F.3d 389 (4th Cir. 2002) (totality of circumstances for knowing/ intelligent waiver)
United States v. Johnson, 410 F.3d 137 (4th Cir. 2005) (colloquy and record indicating understanding support waiver validity)
United States v. Wessells, 936 F.2d 165 (4th Cir. 1991) (importance of clear plea-waiver language and court questioning)
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedures for counsel’s withdrawal and appellate review when no meritorious issues are found)