Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-04752/USCOURTS-ca4-19-04752-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Shaun L. Givens
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-4752

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SHAUN L. GIVENS,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at 

Beckley. David A. Faber, Senior District Judge. (5:18-cr-00066-1)

Submitted: May 1, 2020 Decided: May 26, 2020

Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part, dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles T. Berry, Kingmont, West Virginia, for Appellant. Timothy Doyle Boggess, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Beckley, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-4752 Doc: 24 Filed: 05/26/2020 Pg: 1 of 4
2

PER CURIAM:

Shaun L. Givens seeks to appeal his conviction and sentence imposed following his 

guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine, in 

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2018). Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), concluding that there are no meritorious 

grounds for appeal but questioning whether Givens’ trial counsel was constitutionally 

effective and whether the district court improperly applied an enhancement for possession 

of firearms. Givens has filed a supplemental pro se brief in which he similarly objects to 

the firearm enhancement. The Government has moved to dismiss the appeal based on the 

waiver of appellate rights in Givens’ plea agreement. We affirm in part and dismiss in part. 

Givens’ waiver of appellate rights does not prevent him from challenging the 

validity of the plea itself. See United States v. McCoy, 895 F.3d 358, 364 (4th Cir.), cert. 

denied, 139 S. Ct. 494 (2018). Before accepting a guilty plea, the district court must ensure 

that the plea is knowing, voluntary, and supported by an independent factual basis. 

Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b); United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116, 119-20 (4th 

Cir. 1991). “In evaluating the constitutional validity of a guilty plea, courts look to the 

totality of the circumstances surrounding it, granting the defendant’s solemn declaration of 

guilt a presumption of truthfulness.” United States v. Moussaoui, 591 F.3d 263, 278 (4th 

Cir. 2010) (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted). Because Givens neither raised 

an objection during the Rule 11 proceeding nor moved to withdraw his guilty plea in the 

district court, we review the validity of his plea for plain error. United States v. Sanya, 

774 F.3d 812, 815 (4th Cir. 2014); see Henderson v. United States, 568 U.S. 266, 272 

USCA4 Appeal: 19-4752 Doc: 24 Filed: 05/26/2020 Pg: 2 of 4
3

(2013) (discussing plain error standard of review). We conclude that the district court fully

complied with the Rule 11 requirements and correctly determined that Givens’ guilty plea 

was knowing, voluntary, and supported by a sufficient factual basis. Accordingly, Givens’ 

appellate waiver is valid and bars the sentencing argument that he seeks to raise on appeal. 

Givens also asserts that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective because he 

advised Givens to accept a plea offer without a binding sentencing recommendation and 

failed to file a notice of appeal when instructed to do so. These claims fall outside the 

scope of Givens’ appellate waiver, but we do not consider ineffective assistance claims on 

direct appeal “[u]nless an attorney’s ineffectiveness conclusively appears on the face of the 

record.” United States v. Faulls, 821 F.3d 502, 507 (4th Cir. 2016). Givens repeatedly 

affirmed that he was satisfied with his attorney’s representation regarding the plea 

agreement, and the record contains no evidence to support Givens’ bare allegations that he 

timely instructed his attorney to file a notice of appeal. Moreover, the Government has not 

moved to dismiss the appeal as untimely, so Givens has suffered no prejudice from any 

lapse on counsel’s part regarding the filing of a notice of appeal. Therefore, we conclude 

that Givens’ ineffective assistance of counsel claims are not cognizable on direct appeal. 

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have 

found no meritorious grounds for appeal that fall outside of the scope of the waiver. 

Therefore, we deny the Government’s motion to dismiss in part and affirm the conviction. 

We decline to consider Givens’ ineffective assistance of counsel claims. We grant the 

Government’s motion in part and dismiss the appeal in all other respects. See United 

States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168-70 (4th Cir. 2005). 

USCA4 Appeal: 19-4752 Doc: 24 Filed: 05/26/2020 Pg: 3 of 4
4

This court requires that counsel inform Givens, in writing, of the right to petition 

the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Givens 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 Givens. 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.

AFFIRMED IN PART,

DISMISSED IN PART

USCA4 Appeal: 19-4752 Doc: 24 Filed: 05/26/2020 Pg: 4 of 4