UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4130
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SHANE JAMES SHIRLEY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III,
Chief District Judge. (5:15-cr-00245-D-1)
Submitted: September 29, 2016 Decided: October 3, 2016
Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Eric J. Brignac,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Kristine L. Fritz, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States
Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Shane James Shirley pled guilty in accordance with a
written plea agreement to possession of a firearm while subject
to a protective order, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(8),
924(a)(2) (2012). Shirley was sentenced to 108 months of
imprisonment, the bottom of his correctly calculated advisory
Sentencing Guidelines range. He now appeals. His attorney has
filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), claiming that the district court erred by using the
cross-reference for kidnapping to enhance his sentence and that
his sentence was thus substantively unreasonable. Shirley was
advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but did
not file such a brief. The United States moves to dismiss the
appeal based on a waiver-of-appellate-rights provision in the
plea agreement. We affirm in part and dismiss in part.
The appeal waiver did not apply to Shirley’s conviction.
Having reviewed the entire record, we hold that: the district
court substantially complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11; there was
a factual basis for the plea; and the plea was knowingly and
voluntarily entered. Accordingly, we affirm his conviction.
In the plea agreement, Shirley waived his right to appeal
his sentence, with certain exceptions not applicable here. Upon
review of the record, we conclude, given the totality of the
circumstances, that the waiver is valid and enforceable. We
2
further find that the sentencing issue Shirley seeks to raise on
appeal falls within the scope of the waiver. United States v.
Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168-69 (4th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, we
grant the motion to dismiss Shirley’s appeal of his sentence.
Pursuant to Anders, we have reviewed the entire record for
meritorious, nonwaivable issues and have found none. We
therefore affirm in part and dismiss in part. This court
requires that counsel inform Shirley, in writing, of his right
to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Shirley requests that such a petition be filed, but
counsel believes that the 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 of the
motion was served on Shirley. 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;
DISMISSED IN PART
3