US v. Craig Shaw, No. 15-4266 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-4266 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CRAIG LEWIS SHAW, a/k/a Large, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (5:14-cr-00181-F-1) Submitted: November 17, 2015 Decided: November 19, 2015 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Eric J. Brignac, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Craig Lewis Shaw appeals his convictions, and 87-month concurrent sentences, for possession with intent to distribute 28 grams or more of cocaine base (crack), a quantity of cocaine, and a quantity of marijuana (Count 1), firearm by convicted a felon (Count 3). and possession of a On appeal, counsel for Shaw filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious issues for appeal and acknowledging Shaw’s waiver of appellate rights but questioning whether substantively the reasonable. district Shaw court’s has not sentence filed a pro supplemental brief despite notice of his right to do so. was se The Government has moved to dismiss the appeal as barred by the appellate waiver included in Shaw’s plea agreement. Pursuant to a plea agreement, a defendant may waive his appellate rights under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (2012). United States v. Archie, 771 F.3d 217, 221 (4th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 1579 (2015). A waiver will preclude an appeal of “a specific issue if . . . the waiver is valid and the issue being appealed is within the scope of the waiver.” waiver is valid intelligently.” (4th Cir. 2010). if he agreed to it Id. A defendant’s “knowingly and United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 627 Whether a defendant validly waived his right 2 to appeal is a question of law that we review de novo. United States v. Copeland, 707 F.3d 522, 528 (4th Cir. 2013). Upon review of the plea agreement and the transcript of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing, we conclude that Shaw knowingly and voluntarily sentence. waived his right to appeal his conviction and The sentencing claim raised on appeal clearly falls within the scope of this broad waiver. Therefore, we grant the motion to dismiss and dismiss Shaw’s appeal. We have reviewed the entire record in accordance with Anders and have found no meritorious issues for appeal outside the scope of the waiver. We also deny Shaw’s motion to relieve his counsel. This court requires that counsel inform Shaw, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Shaw 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 Shaw. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3
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.
