Background
Nosakhare Peter Obamogie pled guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement to conspiracy to commit wire fraud in violation of Sections thirteen forty-three and thirteen forty-nine of Title eighteen of the United States Code. The district court sentenced him to fifteen months of imprisonment followed by one year of supervised release. On appeal, counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders versus California asserting no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning the reasonableness of the sentence, the validity of the plea, ineffective assistance of counsel, and discrepancies in supervised release conditions. The Government moved to dismiss the appeal as barred by the appeal waiver in the plea agreement.
The court’s reasoning
The court held that the appeal waiver does not preclude review of the validity of the guilty plea or the waiver itself. Because Obamogie did not move to withdraw his plea or object in the district court, review is for plain error. The court found the district court substantially complied with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure eleven, establishing that the plea was knowing, voluntary, and supported by a factual basis. Regarding the waiver, the court concluded Obamogie knowingly and voluntarily waived his appellate rights, and his sentencing challenges fall within the scope of that valid waiver. Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are not cognizable on direct appeal unless the record conclusively establishes the claim, which was not the case here. The court granted the Government’s motion to dismiss in part and affirmed as to issues not encompassed by the waiver.
What it means going forward
Defendants who sign plea agreements with appeal waivers cannot challenge sentence reasonableness on direct appeal, and ineffective assistance claims must generally be raised in a Section twenty-two hundred fifty-five motion unless the record conclusively proves the claim.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download