Court Opinion

ID: 9375092
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-24 21:01:01.182842+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:55.853846
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4278      Doc: 30         Filed: 02/23/2023     Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-4278

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        BRYON JAMIQUE SHIPMAN, a/k/a Dolla,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:20-cr-00422-FL-4)

        Submitted: February 21, 2023                                  Decided: February 23, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Seth A. Neyhart, LAW OFFICE OF SETH A. NEYHART, Durham, North
        Carolina, for Appellant. David A. Bragdon, Lucy Partain Brown, Assistant United States
        Attorneys, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina,
        for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4278       Doc: 30           Filed: 02/23/2023   Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Bryon Jamique Shipman pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to

        conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine

        and a quantity of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B). The district

        court sentenced Shipman to 60 months’ imprisonment and Shipman timely appealed. On

        appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

        stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether Shipman’s

        sentence is reasonable. Although informed of his right to do so, Shipman has not filed a

        supplemental pro se brief. The Government has moved to dismiss the appeal pursuant to

        the appeal waiver contained in the plea agreement; Shipman opposes the motion. We

        dismiss in part and affirm in part.

               We review de novo the validity of an appellate waiver and “will enforce the waiver

        if it is valid and the issue appealed is within the scope of the waiver.” United States v.

        Adams, 814 F.3d 178, 182 (4th Cir. 2016). Upon review of the record, including the plea

        agreement and transcript of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing, we conclude that Shipman

        knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal and that the issue he seeks to raise on

        appeal falls squarely within the waiver’s scope.

               In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in its entirety and have

        discerned no meritorious issues for appeal outside the scope of Shipman’s valid appeal

        waiver. Accordingly, we grant, in part, the Government's motion to dismiss and dismiss

        the appeal as to all issues within the waiver's scope. We affirm the remainder of the

        judgment.

                                                       2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4278      Doc: 30         Filed: 02/23/2023      Pg: 3 of 3

               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 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

                                                     3