United States v. Walda Lorena Luna
705 F. App'x 202
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Walda Lorena Luna and Perfecto Ruano were charged in the same fraud scheme; their cases were consolidated in district court.
- Luna pleaded guilty to conspiracy (mail fraud), filing a false tax return, and aggravated identity theft under written plea agreement; Ruano pleaded guilty to conspiracy (mail fraud) under a separate plea agreement.
- Both plea agreements contained appellate-waiver provisions. The district court conducted Rule 11 plea colloquies for both defendants.
- Luna appealed claiming the district court impermissibly relied on her nationality at sentencing; Ruano appealed claiming his 57-month sentence was substantively unreasonable.
- The Government moved to dismiss both appeals based on the defendants’ appellate waivers; the Fourth Circuit reviewed waiver validity de novo and assessed the appeals’ scope.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of appellate waivers | Ruano and Luna contend waivers were invalid or should not bar review | Government: waivers were knowing and voluntary after Rule 11 colloquies | Waivers valid for both defendants under totality of circumstances |
| Scope of waiver re: unconstitutional sentencing factor | Luna: her claim (court relied on nationality) is outside waiver scope because it alleges a constitutionally impermissible factor | Government: Luna waived appellate rights broadly | Court: such claims are outside a valid waiver’s scope, but Luna’s specific claim lacked record support and is meritless |
| Reviewability of substantive reasonableness of sentence | Ruano: his 57-month sentence is substantively unreasonable | Government: waiver bars review of sentence reasonableness | Appeal dismissed — waiver bars review; Ruano’s sentence not considered on merits |
| Disposition of appeals | Luna and Ruano seek appellate relief | Government moves to dismiss both appeals per waivers | Ruano’s appeal dismissed; Luna’s appeal not dismissed but judgment affirmed on merits |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Copeland, 707 F.3d 522 (4th Cir. 2013) (defendant may waive right to appeal if waiver is knowing and voluntary)
- United States v. Thornsbury, 670 F.3d 532 (4th Cir. 2012) (Rule 11 colloquy questioning about appellate waiver generally supports waiver validity)
- United States v. Marin, 961 F.2d 493 (4th Cir. 1992) (waiver does not bar appeal alleging sentence based on constitutionally impermissible factor)