Bilal Mohammad Siddiqui pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to two counts of sexual exploitation of a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a), (e), and one count of cyberstalking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2261(A)(2)(b), (b)(5). The district court imposed a 288-month sentence and Siddiqui appealed. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), concluding that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning the scope of Siddiquis waiver of appellate rights and whether his sentence is procedurally reasonable. Although advised of his right to file a pro se brief, Siddiqui has not done so. The Government has moved to dismiss the appeal based on the waiver of appellate rights in Siddiquis plea agreement. We affirm in part and dismiss in part.
Where, as here, the Government seeks to enforce an appeal waiver and Siddiqui has not alleged a breach of the plea agreement, we will enforce the waiver if it is valid and the issue being appealed falls within the scope of the waiver. United States v. Dillard, 891 F.3d 151, 156 (4th Cir. 2018). Siddiqui 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 review of the plea hearing leads us to conclude that the waiver is valid and enforceable. Although counsel questions the scope of Siddiquis waiver of appellate rights, counsel concedes that a factual basis supported his plea and there is no reason to believe that the statutes to which Siddiqui pled guilty were unconstitutional. Moreover, Siddiquis challenge to the procedural reasonableness of his sentence falls within the scope of the waiver.
In accordance with Anders, we have thoroughly reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious grounds for appeal that fall outside the scope of the waiver. Accordingly, we grant the Governments motion to dismiss Siddiquis appeal of his sentence and affirm the remainder of the district courts judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Siddiqui, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Siddiqui 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. Counsels motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Siddiqui.
We dispense with oral argument because that facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART
PER CURIAM:
Affirmed in part, dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.