US v. Shariff Caughman, No. 08-4451 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4451 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SHARIFF YSALAM CAUGHMAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:07-cr-00307-BO-1) Submitted: October 23, 2008 Before NIEMEYER and Senior Circuit Judge. GREGORY, Decided: Circuit Judges, March 24, 2009 and HAMILTON, Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne M. Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Shariff Ysalam Caughman pled guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement to one count of possession with intent to distribute five grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2006), and one count of possession of a firearm in furtherance violation of 18 sentenced Caughman of U.S.C. to a drug § 924(c) a trafficking (2006). 131-month term The of offense, district in court imprisonment. On appeal, Caughman s counsel has filed an Anders brief, noting that Caughman waived the right to appeal his sentence in the plea agreement appeal. and that there are no meritorious issues for However, counsel questions whether Caughman s sentence is longer than necessary to achieve the objectives of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) brief (2006). raising Caughman several issues. pro se Government rights. is knowing and may Caughman s waive the intelligent. waiver supplemental has moved right United to Portillo, 423 F.3d 427, 430 (4th Cir. 2005). of to We dismiss in part and affirm in part. defendant on The a the waiver based filed dismiss A appeal has appellate appeal States v. if that Amaya- 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, Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 2 the waiver is both valid and enforceable. United States v. Johnson, 410 F.3d 137, 151 (4th Cir. 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. United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir. 2005). Our review of the record leads us to conclude that Caughman knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to appeal his sentence. Moreover, the sentencing claim Caughman s counsel raises on appeal falls within the scope of the waiver. We therefore grant the Government s motion to dismiss this portion of the appeal. Although the waiver provision in the plea agreement insulates Caughman s sentence from appellate review, the waiver does not preclude our consideration of any errors in Caughman s convictions Anders. that may be revealed by our review pursuant to In accordance with Anders, then, we have examined the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues not covered by the waiver. plea colloquy leads us to Our review of the transcript of the conclude that the district court substantially complied with the mandates of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting Caughman's guilty plea and that any omissions did not affect his substantial rights. that the plea was entered The district court ensured knowingly 3 and voluntarily and was supported by an independent factual basis. See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116, 119-20 (4th Cir. 1991). Moreover, none of the issues in Caughman s pro se supplemental brief raise meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm Caughman s dismiss the appeal of his sentence. convictions and 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. the client requests that a petition be filed, but If counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in representation. was served on this court for leave to withdraw from Counsel's motion must state that a copy thereof 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; DISMISSED IN PART 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
