US v. Aiah Gbondo, No. 08-5088 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-5088 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. AIAH MOMOI GBONDO, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:06-cr-00235-PJM-1) Submitted: October 18, 2010 Decided: November 5, 2010 Before MOTZ, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steven G. Berry, Bethesda, Maryland, for Appellant. James Andrew Crowell, IV, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Aiah Momoi Gbondo pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to one count of aiding and abetting bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1344 (2006), and one count of aiding and abetting aggravated identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, calculated 1028A(a)(1) Gbondo s total (2006). offense The level district under court the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual ( USSG ) (2006) at nineteen and his criminal history imprisonment in Category range of I, resulting thirty to in a Guidelines thirty-seven months imprisonment on the bank fraud count. Gbondo was also subject to sentence a statutorily-mandated consecutive imprisonment on the identity theft count. sentenced bank Gbondo fraud to count thirty-seven and a months consecutive of two years The district court imprisonment sentence of on two the years imprisonment on the identity theft count. On appeal, Gbondo s counsel has filed an Anders 1 brief, stating that questioning there whether: enforceable; the are no viable Gbondo s evidence is grounds appeal for waiver sufficient to appeal, is but valid and support Gbondo s convictions; the convictions should be overturned as a result of entrapment 1 and a questionable search warrant; Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 2 trial counsel rendered ineffective unreasonable. assistance; and Gbondo s sentence is The Government has moved to dismiss the appeal in part based on Gbondo s waiver of appellate rights and in part based on the lack of merit in the unwaived issues. Gbondo has filed a pro se supplemental brief in which he questions whether the district whether court trial erred counsel in accepting rendered his ineffective guilty plea assistance. and We dismiss in part and affirm in part. A defendant may waive the waiver is knowing and intelligent. 492 F.3d 263, 270 (4th Cir. 2007). right to appeal if that United States v. Poindexter, Generally, if the district court fully questions a defendant regarding the waiver of his right to appeal during the plea colloquy performed in accordance with Fed. R. enforceable. Crim. P. 11, the waiver is both valid and See United States v. Johnson, 410 F.3d 137, 151 (4th Cir. 2005); United States v. Wessells, 936 F.2d 165, 167-68 (4th Cir. 1991). The question of whether a defendant validly waived his right to appeal is a question of law that this court reviews de novo. United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir. 2005). Our review of the record leads us to conclude that Gbondo knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to appeal his sentence. We therefore grant the Government s motion to dismiss in part and dismiss the appeal of Gbondo s sentence. 3 Although Gbondo s appeal waiver insulates his sentence from appellate review, the waiver does not preclude our consideration of the remaining claims Gbondo s counsel 2 and Gbondo raise on appeal or prohibit our review of Gbondo s conviction pursuant to Anders. Consequently, we deny the motion to dismiss in part. Turning, then, to the unwaived claims, because Gbondo did not move in the district court to withdraw his guilty plea, the adequacy of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing is reviewed for plain error. See United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). plea hearing Our review of the transcript of the guilty leads us to conclude that the district court substantially complied with the mandates of Rule 11 in accepting Gbondo s guilty plea and that the affect Gbondo s substantial rights. court s omissions did not Critically, the transcript reveals that the district court ensured the plea was supported by an independent factual basis and that Gbondo entered the plea knowingly and consequences. voluntarily with an understanding of the See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116, 119-20 (4th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, we discern no plain error in the district court s acceptance of Gbondo s guilty plea. 2 The Government moves to dismiss the claims raised by counsel as meritless. This constitutes, in effect, a motion for summary affirmance of the unwaived claims. This court reserves such a motion for extraordinary circumstances not present here. 4th Cir. R. 27(f). 4 Additionally, Gbondo s knowing and voluntary guilty plea constitutes an admission of the material elements of the offenses, (1969), see and Henderson, McCarthy waives 411 v. United States, non-jurisdictional U.S. 258, 267 394 errors, (1973). U.S. 466 Tollett see 459, v. Furthermore, Gbondo s guilty plea waives his right to contest the factual merits of United States v. Willis, 992 F.2d 489, 490-91 the offenses. (4th Cir. 1993). Finally, as to counsel s and Gbondo s claims that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance, these claims are more appropriately 28 U.S.C.A. § raised 2255 in (West a motion Supp. filed 2010), pursuant unless ineffectiveness conclusively appears on the record. counsel s See United States v. Richardson, 195 F.3d 192, 198 (4th Cir. 1999). review of counsel the record, rendered we find ineffective no conclusive assistance, After evidence and to we that accordingly decline to consider these claims on direct appeal. In remainder of accordance the with record in Anders, this meritorious issues for review. we case have and reviewed have found the no We therefore affirm Gbondo s convictions and dismiss the appeal of his sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Gbondo, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme review. If Gbondo Court of requests the that 5 United a States petition be for further filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move representation. in this court for leave to withdraw from Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Gbondo. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART 6
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
