USA v. Shawntae Fairley, No. 17-60812 (5th Cir. 2018)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 17-60812 Document: 00514608863 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/21/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 17-60812 Summary Calendar FILED August 21, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. SHAWNTAE MAURICE FAIRLEY, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 1:16-CR-98-8 Before DENNIS, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Shawntae Maurice Fairley appeals the 360-month prison sentence imposed following his conviction of one count of possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute. He challenges the district court’s relevant conduct determination and its conclusion that the drugs underlying the offense were imported. He also argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because it is substantially greater than that of a similarly Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * Case: 17-60812 Document: 00514608863 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/21/2018 No. 17-60812 situated codefendant. Relying on the appellate waiver in the plea agreement, the Government seeks the dismissal of the appeal or, alternately, summary affirmance. Fairley does not challenge the voluntariness of the waiver provision. Instead, he argues that a miscarriage of justice will occur if the waiver is enforced. Our review of the record shows that Fairley’s appeal waiver was knowing and voluntary and that, under the plain language of the plea agreement, the waiver applies to his claims. See United States v. Keele, 755 F.3d 752, 754 (5th Cir. 2014). We decline to adopt the miscarriage of justice exception to appellate waivers. The Government’s motion to dismiss the appeal is GRANTED, and the appeal is DISMISSED. The Government’s alternate motion for summary affirmance is DENIED. 2

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.