UNITED STATES v. REINHOLD (2020)

Kenneth Wade Reinhold pled guilty to producing child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a), and the district court imposed a sentence of 360 months in prison. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), questioning whether Reinhold's sentence is substantively reasonable. Reinhold did not file a pro se supplemental brief despite notice of his right to do so. The Government moves to dismiss this appeal as barred by the appellate waiver contained in Reinhold's plea agreement. For the following reasons, we affirm in part and dismiss in part.

Appellate counsel questions the reasonableness of Reinhold's sentence. Where, as here, the Government seeks to enforce an appeal waiver and the defendant has not alleged a breach of the plea agreement, we will enforce the waiver if it is valid and the issue raised on appeal falls within the waiver's scope. United States v. Dillard, 891 F.3d 151, 156 (4th Cir. 2018). Reinhold 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 de novo review of the plea hearing leads us to conclude that Reinhold's guilty plea was knowing and voluntary, and the waiver is valid and enforceable. See United States v. Cohen, 888 F.3d 667, 678 (4th Cir. 2018) (stating standard of review). Reinhold's challenge to the reasonableness of his sentence falls squarely within the waiver's scope. We have thoroughly reviewed the record in accordance with Anders and have identified no potentially meritorious issues that would fall outside the scope of the waiver. Accordingly, we grant the Government's motion to dismiss Reinhold's appeal of his sentence and affirm the remainder of the district court's judgment.

This court requires that counsel inform Reinhold, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Reinhold 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 Reinhold. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART

PER CURIAM:

Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.