UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-5273
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
SHAWN JABBAR JILES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief
District Judge. (CR-05-41)
Submitted: August 9, 2006 Decided: September 6, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Frank DeArmon Whitney, United States Attorney, Anne
Margaret Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-
Parker, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Shawn Jabbar Jiles appeals his conviction and 120-month
sentence imposed after he pled guilty, pursuant to a plea
agreement, to possession of firearms by a convicted felon, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000). On appeal, counsel has
filed an Anders* brief, stating there are no meritorious issues for
appeal but suggesting that Jiles’ sentence is unreasonable. The
Government has moved to dismiss the appeal, asserting that Jiles
validly waived the right to appeal his sentence in the plea
agreement. We affirm in part and dismiss in part.
A defendant may waive the right to appeal if that waiver
is knowing and intelligent. United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162,
169 (4th Cir. 2005). Generally, if the district court fully
questions a defendant regarding the waiver of his right to appeal
during the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 colloquy, the waiver is both valid
and enforceable. United States v. Johnson, 410 F.3d 137, 151 (4th
Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 461 (2005); United States v.
Wessells, 936 F.2d 165, 167-68 (4th Cir. 1991). The question of
whether a defendant validly waived his right to appeal is a
question of law that we review de novo. Blick, 408 F.3d at 168.
Our review of the record leads us to conclude that Jiles
knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to appeal his sentence.
Moreover, the sentencing issue raised on appeal falls within the
*
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
- 2 -
scope of the waiver. We therefore grant, in part, the Government’s
motion to dismiss and dismiss this portion of the appeal.
Although the waiver provision in the plea agreement
precludes our review of the sentence, the waiver does not preclude
our review of any errors in Jiles’ conviction that may be revealed
by our review pursuant to Anders. Our review of the transcript of
the plea colloquy leads us to conclude that the district court
fully complied with the mandates of Rule 11 in accepting Jiles’
guilty plea. Thus, we deny, in part, the Government’s motion to
dismiss and affirm the conviction.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues not
covered by the waiver. We therefore affirm Jiles’ conviction and
dismiss the appeal of his sentence. This court requires that
counsel inform his client, in writing, of the right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the
client 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 client. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART AND
DISMISSED IN PART
- 3 -