United States of America v. Shannon D. Ashworth

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4168
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SHANNON D. ASHWORTH,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 16-4199
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JASON A. TOMSHA,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 16-4230
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
JAMES M. DAY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of South Carolina, at Anderson. Timothy M. Cain, District
Judge. (8:15-cr-00221-TMC-4; 8:15-cr-00221-TMC-14, 8:15-cr-
00221-TMC-17)
Submitted: August 25, 2016 Decided: August 29, 2016
Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ray Coit Yarborough, Jr., LAW OFFICE OF RAY COIT YARBOROUGH,
JR., Florence, South Carolina; Joshua Snow Kendrick, KENDRICK &
LEONARD, P.C., Greenville, South Carolina; Derek J. Enderlin,
ROSS AND ENDERLIN, PA, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellants. William Jacob Watkins, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Shannon D. Ashworth, Jason
A. Tomsha, and James M. Day (“Appellants”) appeal their
convictions and sentences for conspiracy to defraud the
Government, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (2012). On appeal,
counsel for Appellants filed a joint brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no
meritorious issues for appeal but questioning the reasonableness
of their sentences. The Government has moved to dismiss the
appeals as barred by the appellate waivers contained in the
Appellants’ written plea agreements.
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
to appeal is a question of law that we review de novo. United
States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir. 2005).
Upon review of the plea agreement and the transcript of the
Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing, we conclude that Appellants

-- 3 of 4 --

4
knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to appeal their
convictions and sentences. The sentencing claims raised on
appeal clearly fall within the scope of this broad waiver.
Therefore, we grant the motion to dismiss and dismiss
Appellants’ appeals. We have reviewed the entire record in
accordance with Anders and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal outside the scope of the waiver.
This court requires that counsel inform each Appellant, in
writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If any of the Appellants
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 the
Appellants.
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

-- 4 of 4 --