UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

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), and possession of a 

firearm by convicted a felon (Count 3). 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 the district court’s sentence was 

substantively reasonable. Shaw has not filed a pro se 

supplemental brief despite notice of his right to do so. 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.” Id. A defendant’s 

waiver is valid if he agreed to it “knowingly and 

intelligently.” United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 627 

(4th Cir. 2010). Whether a defendant validly waived his right 
3

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 waived his right to appeal his conviction and 

sentence. 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