UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-4301

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

HASAAN JAMIL SHIPMAN, a/k/a Lil Dad,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Terrence W. Boyle, 

District Judge. (7:11-cr-00109-BO-1)

Submitted: November 29, 2012 Decided: December 14, 2012

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam 

opinion.

Robert L. Cooper, COOPER, DAVIS & COOPER, Fayetteville, North 

Carolina, for Appellant. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Charity L. Wilson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED 

STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Pursuant to a written plea agreement, Hasaan Jamil 

Shipman pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted 

felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g), 924(a) (2006), and 

was sentenced to 120 months’ imprisonment. Counsel for Shipman 

has now submitted a brief in accordance with Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that he has found no 

meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether the 

district court improperly calculated the adjusted offense level 

based on evidence unsupported by a sufficient indicia of 

reliability, rendering Shipman’s sentence procedurally 

unreasonable. The Government has moved to dismiss the appeal of 

Shipman’s sentence based on his waiver of appellate rights and 

the timeliness of the appeal. Shipman was informed of his right 

to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not done so. We 

have reviewed the record, and we grant the Government’s motion

in part, dismiss Shipman’s appeal in part, and affirm in part.

A criminal defendant may, in a valid plea agreement, 

waive the right to appeal under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (2006). United 

States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 627 (4th Cir. 2010). We review 

the validity of an appellate waiver de novo and will enforce the 

waiver if it is valid and the issue appealed is within the scope 

of that waiver. United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th 

Cir. 2005). Generally, if the district court fully questions a 
3

defendant regarding the waiver of his right to appeal during the 

plea colloquy performed in accordance with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, 

the waiver is both valid and enforceable. Manigan, 592 F.3d at 

627; United States v. Johnson, 410 F.3d 137, 151 (4th Cir. 

2005). Our review of the record convinces us that Shipman 

knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to appeal his 

sentence. We therefore grant the Government’s motion to dismiss 

as to all sentencing issues that a defendant may lawfully waive.*

As to any remaining issues, see Blick, 408 F.3d at 

171-73; United States v. Poindexter, 492 F.3d 263, 271 (4th Cir. 

2007), we have reviewed the entire record in accordance with 

Anders and have found no unwaived meritorious issues. We 

therefore affirm the district court’s judgment as to all issues 

not encompassed by Shipman’s valid waiver of appellate rights.

This court requires that counsel inform Shipman, in 

writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the 

United States for further review. If Shipman 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 Shipman. We dispense 

 * We decline to dismiss the appeal in its entirety based on 

the Government’s other basis for dismissal: that the notice of 

appeal was filed one day late. 
4

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 IN PART;

AFFIRMED IN PART