US v. Shariff Caughman
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SHARIFF YSALAM CAUGHMAN, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:07-cr-00307-BO-1)
October 23, 2008
March 24, 2009
Before NIEMEYER and Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne M. Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Shariff Ysalam Caughman pled guilty pursuant to a
written plea agreement to one count of possession with intent to distribute five grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2006), and one count of possession of a firearm violation sentenced in of furtherance 18 U.S.C. to a of a drug trafficking The of offense, in
appeal, Caughman's counsel has filed an Anders brief, noting that Caughman waived the right to appeal his sentence in the plea agreement and that there are no meritorious issues for
However, counsel questions whether Caughman's sentence
is longer than necessary to achieve the objectives of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) brief (2006). Caughman has filed The a pro se supplemental has of moved to
We dismiss in part and affirm in part. A defendant knowing and may waive the right United to appeal v. if that
Portillo, 423 F.3d 427, 430 (4th Cir. 2005).
Generally, if the
district court fully questions a defendant regarding the waiver of his right to appeal during the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 colloquy,
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
the waiver is both valid and enforceable.
United States v.
Johnson, 410 F.3d 137, 151 (4th Cir. 2005); United States v. Wessells, 936 F.2d 165, 167-68 (4th Cir. 1991). The question of
whether a defendant validly waived his right to appeal is a question of law that we review de novo. 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir. 2005). Our review of the record leads us to conclude that Caughman knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to appeal his sentence. Moreover, the sentencing claim Caughman's counsel We United States v. Blick,
raises on appeal falls within the scope of the waiver.
therefore grant the Government's motion to dismiss this portion of the appeal. Although the waiver provision in the plea agreement insulates Caughman's sentence from appellate review, the waiver does not preclude our consideration of any errors in Caughman's convictions Anders. that may be revealed by our review pursuant to
In accordance with Anders, then, we have examined the
entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues not covered by the waiver. plea colloquy leads us to Our review of the transcript of the conclude that the district court
substantially complied with the mandates of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting Caughman's guilty plea and that any omissions did not affect his substantial rights. that the plea was entered The district court ensured and voluntarily and was
supported by an independent factual basis.
See United States v. Moreover,
DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116, 119-20 (4th Cir. 1991).
none of the issues in Caughman's pro se supplemental brief raise meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm Caughman's convictions and
dismiss the appeal of his sentence.
This court requires that
counsel inform his client, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. the client requests that a petition be filed, but If
believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. was served on
Counsel's motion must state that a copy thereof the client. 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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?