United States v. Hasaan Shipman , 500 F. App'x 209 ( 2012 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4301
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
HASAAN JAMIL SHIPMAN, a/k/a Lil Dad,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (7:11-cr-00109-BO-1)
Submitted: November 29, 2012 Decided: December 14, 2012
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Robert L. Cooper, COOPER, DAVIS & COOPER, Fayetteville, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant
United States Attorney, Charity L. Wilson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Pursuant to a written plea agreement, Hasaan Jamil
Shipman pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted
felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g), 924(a) (2006), and
was sentenced to 120 months’ imprisonment. Counsel for Shipman
has now submitted a brief in accordance with Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that he has found no
meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether the
district court improperly calculated the adjusted offense level
based on evidence unsupported by a sufficient indicia of
reliability, rendering Shipman’s sentence procedurally
unreasonable. The Government has moved to dismiss the appeal of
Shipman’s sentence based on his waiver of appellate rights and
the timeliness of the appeal. Shipman was informed of his right
to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not done so. We
have reviewed the record, and we grant the Government’s motion
in part, dismiss Shipman’s appeal in part, and affirm in part.
A criminal defendant may, in a valid plea agreement,
waive the right to appeal under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (2006). United
States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 627 (4th Cir. 2010). We review
the validity of an appellate waiver de novo and will enforce the
waiver if it is valid and the issue appealed is within the scope
of that waiver. United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th
Cir. 2005). Generally, if the district court fully questions a
2
defendant regarding the waiver of his right to appeal during the
plea colloquy performed in accordance with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11,
the waiver is both valid and enforceable. Manigan, 592 F.3d at
627; United States v. Johnson, 410 F.3d 137, 151 (4th Cir.
2005). Our review of the record convinces us that Shipman
knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to appeal his
sentence. We therefore grant the Government’s motion to dismiss
as to all sentencing issues that a defendant may lawfully waive. *
As to any remaining issues, see Blick, 408 F.3d at
171-73; United States v. Poindexter, 492 F.3d 263, 271 (4th Cir.
2007), we have reviewed the entire record in accordance with
Anders and have found no unwaived meritorious issues. We
therefore affirm the district court’s judgment as to all issues
not encompassed by Shipman’s valid waiver of appellate rights.
This court requires that counsel inform Shipman, in
writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Shipman 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 Shipman. We dispense
*
We decline to dismiss the appeal in its entirety based on
the Government’s other basis for dismissal: that the notice of
appeal was filed one day late.
3
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
4