UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

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 
3

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