United States v. Raul Magallanes-Flores, 687 F. App'x 233

Raul Magallanes‑Flores pled guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement to conspiracy to distribute cocaine (21 U.S.C. § 846) and was sentenced within the Guidelines to 235 months' imprisonment.
The plea agreement contained a broad appellate‑waiver provision but expressly preserved certain claims, including ineffective‑assistance claims.
Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief asserting no meritorious issues but asked the court to review the adequacy of the district court’s sentencing explanation.
Magallanes‑Flores filed a pro se supplemental brief challenging the voluntariness of his plea, sufficiency of the evidence, and trial counsel’s effectiveness.
The government moved to dismiss the appeal under the appellate waiver; the Fourth Circuit reviewed the waiver’s validity de novo and examined the Rule 11 transcript and plea agreement.
The court concluded the waiver was knowing and voluntary, dismissed those portions of the appeal covered by the waiver, and affirmed the judgment in part; ineffective‑assistance claims were not conclusively shown on the record and were directed to § 2255.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity/enforceability of appellate waiver	Magallanes‑Flores argues some claims remain or waiver not knowing	Government argues waiver is valid and bars appeal of sentencing claim	Waiver was knowing and voluntary; appeal dismissed as to waived issues
Sentencing‑explanation review	Appellate counsel sought review of district court’s sentencing explanation	Government invoked appellate waiver to bar review	Claim falls within the scope of the valid waiver and was dismissed
Voluntariness of guilty plea	Magallanes‑Flores contends plea was not knowing/voluntary	Government points to Rule 11 colloquy and plea agreement showing voluntariness	Court found plea colloquy and agreement establish waiver and plea was knowing/voluntary
Ineffective assistance of counsel	Magallanes‑Flores alleges trial counsel ineffective	Government notes waiver does not waive ineffective‑assistance claims but challenges on direct appeal require record development	Court: ineffective assistance does not conclusively appear on record; such claims are cognizable in a § 2255 motion, not on direct appeal

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedures for counsel when asserting no meritorious appellate issues)
United States v. Copeland, 707 F.3d 522 (4th Cir. 2013) (de novo review of appeal waiver validity)
United States v. Thornsbury, 670 F.3d 532 (4th Cir. 2012) (enforcement of valid appellate waivers when issue falls within scope)
United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621 (4th Cir. 2010) (definition of a knowing and intelligent waiver)
United States v. Johnson, 410 F.3d 137 (4th Cir. 2005) (limits on waivable claims—statutory maximum and certain constitutional claims)
United States v. Craig, 985 F.2d 175 (4th Cir. 1993) (appellate waiver exceptions for certain Sixth Amendment claims)
United States v. Baldovinos, 434 F.3d 233 (4th Cir. 2006) (ineffective assistance usually not shown on the face of the record)
United States v. Benton, 523 F.3d 424 (4th Cir. 2008) (ineffective‑assistance claims generally not cognizable on direct appeal)
United States v. Baptiste, 596 F.3d 214 (4th Cir. 2010) (§ 2255 is the proper vehicle to develop ineffective‑assistance claims)