UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-4153

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DERRICK SHURON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. 

(1:11-cr-00045-RDB-1)

Submitted: October 11, 2012 Decided: October 15, 2012

Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam 

opinion.

Dwight E. Crawley, LAW OFFICE OF DWIGHT E. CRAWLEY, Washington, 

DC, for Appellant. John Walter Sippel, Jr., Assistant United 

States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Derrick Shuron pled guilty to one count of possession 

of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 922(g)(1) (2006). In his plea agreement, Shuron waived the 

right to appeal his conviction and sentence, reserving only the 

right to appeal a sentence greater than 100 months. Pursuant to 

his Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C) agreement with the Government, 

Shuron was sentenced to 100 months’ imprisonment. Shuron 

appealed.

Shuron’s counsel has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that 

there are no non-frivolous issues for appeal, but questioning 

whether Shuron’s guilty plea was valid under Rule 11 and whether 

the district court properly sentenced Shuron. Shuron has filed 

a pro se supplemental brief challenging the validity of his 

guilty plea and additionally contesting a four-point sentencing 

enhancement and the sentencing court’s reliance on the 

presentence report. The Government has moved to dismiss 

Shuron’s appeal to the extent that the issues he raises fall 

within the scope of his plea agreement’s waiver of appellate 

rights. For the following reasons, we grant the Government’s 

motion for partial dismissal, dismiss in part, and affirm in 

part.
3

Pursuant to a plea agreement, a defendant may waive 

his appellate rights under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (2006). United 

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

waiver will preclude appeal of a given issue if the issue is 

within the scope of the waiver. United States v. Blick, 408 

F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir. 2005). The validity of an appellate 

waiver is a question of law that we review de novo. Id. “The 

validity of an appeal waiver depends on whether the defendant 

knowingly and intelligently agreed to waive the right to 

appeal.” Id. at 169. 

Here, the district court fully complied with Rule 11 

when accepting Shuron’s plea, ensuring that Shuron understood 

the rights he was relinquishing by pleading guilty and the 

sentence he faced, that Shuron committed the offense to which he 

was pleading, and that Shuron was aware of the limits his plea 

would place on his appellate rights. Given no indication to the 

contrary, we find that Shuron’s appellate waiver is valid and 

enforceable. Moreover, under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(c), a defendant’s 

appeal of a sentence to which he stipulated in a Rule 

11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement is limited to circumstances where 

“his sentence was imposed in violation of law [or] was imposed 

as a result of an incorrect application of the sentencing 

guidelines.” United States v. Sanchez, 146 F.3d 796, 797 (10th 

Cir. 1998) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted; 
4

alteration in original). Accordingly, we grant the Government’s 

motion for partial dismissal, dismissing Shuron’s appeal of his 

sentence.

But even a valid waiver of appellate rights will not 

foreclose a colorable constitutional challenge to the 

voluntariness of a guilty plea. See, e.g., United States v. 

Attar, 38 F.3d 727, 732–33 & n.2 (4th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, 

Shuron’s appellate waiver does not foreclose our review of the 

knowing and voluntary nature of his guilty plea. Because Shuron 

did not move to withdraw his guilty plea, however, we review his 

Rule 11 hearing for plain error. United States v. Martinez, 277 

F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). As noted above, the district 

court fully complied with Rule 11 when accepting Shuron’s guilty

plea, and, therefore, we find no reason to question its 

validity. See United States v. Lambey, 974 F.2d 1389, 1394 (4th 

Cir. 1992) (en banc).

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the 

record, mindful of the scope of the appellate waiver, and have 

found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the 

appeal in part and dismiss in part. This court requires that 

counsel inform Shuron, in writing, of his right to petition the 

Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If 

Shuron requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes 

that such a petition would be frivolous, counsel may move in 
5

this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s 

motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Shuron. 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