UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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