United States v. Shifler

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-4667

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JEFFREY S. SHIFLER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge.
(1:06-cr-00320-JFM-1)

Submitted: September 15, 2009 Decided: October 6, 2009

Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.

John L. Machado, LAW OFFICE OF JOHN MACHADO, Washington, D.C.,
for Appellant. Paul Michael Cunningham, Assistant United States
Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Jeffrey S. Shifler pled guilty pursuant to a written

plea agreement to interference with attendance at public schools

and interference with housing, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 245(b)(2)(A); 42 U.S.C. § 3631(a) (2006), and he was sentenced

to fifty-one months’ imprisonment. Appellate counsel filed a

brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in

which he asserts there are no meritorious issues for appeal.

Shifler was notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental

brief, but he has not done so. The Government moves to dismiss

the appeal, asserting Shifler waived his appellate rights in the

plea agreement.

Upon review of the plea agreement and the transcript

of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing, we conclude that Shifler

knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal his

sentence. Further, because counsel did not raise any sentencing

issues outside the scope of the waiver, and we discern none, the

terms of the agreement will be enforced. Accordingly, we grant

the Government’s motion to dismiss as to Shifler’s sentence.

However, because the appeal waiver pertains only to Shifler’s

sentence, we have reviewed the convictions pursuant to our

obligation under Anders. As we have found no meritorious issues

for appeal, we affirm Shifler’s convictions.

2
 This court requires that counsel inform his client, in

writing, of his 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 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.

DISMISSED IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART

3