United States of America v. Craig Lewis Shaw, a/k/a Large

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4266
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CRAIG LEWIS SHAW, a/k/a Large,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:14-cr-00181-F-1)
Submitted: November 17, 2015 Decided: November 19, 2015
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Eric J. Brignac,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States
Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Craig Lewis Shaw appeals his convictions, and 87-month
concurrent sentences, for possession with intent to distribute
28 grams or more of cocaine base (crack), a quantity of cocaine,
and a quantity of marijuana (Count 1), and possession of a
firearm by convicted a felon (Count 3). On appeal, counsel for
Shaw filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious issues for
appeal and acknowledging Shaw’s waiver of appellate rights but
questioning whether the district court’s sentence was
substantively reasonable. Shaw has not filed a pro se
supplemental brief despite notice of his right to do so. The
Government has moved to dismiss the appeal as barred by the
appellate waiver included in Shaw’s plea agreement.
Pursuant to a plea agreement, a defendant may waive his
appellate rights under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (2012). United States
v. Archie, 771 F.3d 217, 221 (4th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 135
S. Ct. 1579 (2015). A waiver will preclude an appeal of “a
specific issue if . . . the waiver is valid and the issue being
appealed is within the scope of the waiver.” Id. A defendant’s
waiver is valid if he agreed to it “knowingly and
intelligently.” United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 627
(4th Cir. 2010). Whether a defendant validly waived his right

-- 2 of 3 --

3
to appeal is a question of law that we review de novo. United
States v. Copeland, 707 F.3d 522, 528 (4th Cir. 2013).
Upon review of the plea agreement and the transcript of the
Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing, we conclude that Shaw knowingly and
voluntarily waived his right to appeal his conviction and
sentence. The sentencing claim raised on appeal clearly falls
within the scope of this broad waiver. Therefore, we grant the
motion to dismiss and dismiss Shaw’s appeal. We have reviewed
the entire record in accordance with Anders and have found no
meritorious issues for appeal outside the scope of the waiver.
We also deny Shaw’s motion to relieve his counsel.
This court requires that counsel inform Shaw, in writing,
of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States
for further review. If Shaw 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 Shaw.
We dispense 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

-- 3 of 3 --