US v. Daniela Giancoli - Appeal Dismissed in Part, Affirmed in Part

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF AP PEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25- 4330 UNITED ST ATES OF AMER ICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DANIELA MARIE GIAN COLI, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for th e Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Thomas S. Kleeh, Chief District Judge. (2:23 - cr - 00007 - TSK - MJA -2) Submitted: February 19, 202 6 Decided: February 23, 2026 Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismiss ed in part and affirm ed in part by un publishe d per curiam opinion. ON BRIEF: Robert L. Sirianni, BROWNSTONE, P.A., Winter Park, Florida, for Appellant. Matthew L. Harvey, United States Attorney, Stephen Warner, Assistant United States At torney, OFFI CE OF THE UNI TED STATE S ATTORNE Y, Elkins, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding p recedent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM: Daniela Marie Giancoli pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to conspiracy to distribute fentanyl, in vio lation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), 84 6. The district court varied below Giancoli’s ad visory Sentencing Guidelines range and imposed a sentence of 150 mon ths’ imprisonment. On appeal, Giancoli argues that the court procedurally erred in imposing her sentence by miscalculating her Guidelines range and by c onsidering third - party conduct. She further contends that her plea counsel rendered ineffective assistance by in adequately advis in g her concerning the significance of the appeal waiver contained in her plea agreement. Finally, Giancoli asserts that the Government violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), by failing to disclose certain impeachment evidenc e before sentencing. The Gover nment has moved t o dismis s the appeal as barred by Giancoli’s appeal waiver. We d ismiss the appeal in part and affirm the district court’s judgment in p art. “We review an appellate waiver d e novo to determine its enforcea bility” and “will enforce the waiver if it is valid and if the issue being app ealed falls within its scope.” United States v. Carter, 87 F.4th 217, 223 - 24 (4th Cir. 202 3) (citation modified). “An appellate waiver is valid if the defendant knowingly and voluntarily agreed to it.” Id. at 224 (citation modified). To determine whether a waiver is kn owing and voluntary, “we look to the totality of the circumstances, includi ng the defendant’s experience, conduct, educational background and kno wledge of [her] plea agreement and its terms.” Id. “When a district court questions a defendant during a [Fed. R. Crim. P.] 11 hearing regarding an appeal waiver and the record show s that the defendant understood the import of [her]

3 concessions, we generally will ho ld that the waiver is valid.” United States v. Boutcher, 998 F.3d 603, 608 (4th Cir. 2021). Our review of the record confirms that Giancoli knowingly a nd volunta rily wai ved her righ t to appeal her conv iction and sentence. * Because her sentencing challenges fall squarely within the scope of the valid appeal waiver, we grant the Government’s motion to dismiss and dismiss the appeal as to th ese claims. The appeal waiver does not preclude our review of Giancoli’s ineffective assist ance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct claims. However, c laims of ineffective assistance of counsel are cognizable on direct appeal “only where the record co nclusively establishes ineffective assistance.” United Sta tes v. Baptiste, 596 F.3 d 214, 2 16 n.1 (4th Cir. 2010). “Otherwise, the proper avenue for such claims is in a 28 U.S.C. § 225 5 motion filed with the district court.” Id. B ecause it does not conclusively appear on the record befo re us that counsel rendered ineffective assistance, we decline to consider Giancoli’s ineffective assistance claim on direct ap peal. Finally, Giancoli asserts that “a t sentencing, a law enfo rcement officer testified for the first time that there had been a stakeout and subseq uent traffic stop in Maryland related to [the] case.” She contends that this constitutes a Brady v iolation because “ the withh eld information ... could have been used to imp each the thoroughness and reliability of the * Contrary to Giancoli’s assertion in her opposition to the Government’s motion to dismiss, her sentencing challeng es do not fall within the “narro w class of claims” for which we will decline to enforce an otherw ise valid waiver. See United S tates v. Smith, 134 F.4th 248, 261 (4th Cir. 2025).

4 government’s investigation, ” an d may have resulted in a lower sentence. B ecause Giancoli did not raise this claim in the district court, we review it for p lain error. See United States v. Catone, 769 F.3d 8 66, 871 (4th Cir. 2014). “To establish plain error, [Giancoli] must show (1) that the court erred, (2) that the error is clear a nd obvious, and (3) that the error affected [her] substantial rights, meaning that it affected the outcome of the district court proceedings.” Id. (citation modified). As t he Government correctly asserts, Gian coli fails to identify any factual sup port for her claim. See Un ited States v. Taylor, 942 F.3d 205, 225 (4t h Cir. 2019) (explaining that “proponent must show that the undisclosed evidence was (1) favorable to [her] either because it is exculpatory, o r because it is impeaching; (2) material to th e defense, i.e., prejudic e must ha ve ensued; and (3) that the prosecution had materials and failed to disclose them”). She therefore has failed to establish any plain error based on her Brady claim. Accordingly, we grant the Government’s motion to dismiss and dismiss the appeal as to Giancoli’s sentencing claims. W e otherwise affirm the criminal judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this cou rt and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED IN P ART, AFFIRMED IN PART