US v. Shaquan Manson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to dismiss appeal [999555764-2] Originating case number: 5:14-cr-00009-BO-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999631929].. [14-4874]

Appeal: 14-4874

Doc: 25

Filed: 07/31/2015

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4874

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
SHAQUAN DONDREL MANSON,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:14-cr-00009-BO-1)

Submitted:

June 29, 2015

Decided:

July 31, 2015

Before DIAZ, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Robert E. Waters,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4874

Doc: 25

Filed: 07/31/2015

Pg: 2 of 5

PER CURIAM:
Shaquan Dondrel Manson appeals his conviction and 166-month
sentence imposed following a guilty plea to Hobbs Act robbery
and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1951
(2012),

and

using,

carrying,

brandishing,

and

discharging

a

firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence and aiding
and

abetting,

(2012).

in

violation

Manson’s

counsel

of

18

has

U.S.C.

filed

a

§§ 2,

924(c)(1)(A)

brief

pursuant

to

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there
are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether
the

district

sentence.

court

imposed

a

substantively

unreasonable

Manson was notified of his right to file a pro se

supplemental brief but has not done so.

The Government moves to

dismiss the appeal pursuant to the appeal waiver provision in
Manson’s plea agreement.

Manson opposes dismissal.

For the

reasons that follow, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal.
We review de novo the issue of whether a defendant has
validly waived his right to appeal.
F.3d

349,

354-55

(4th

Cir.

United States v. Davis, 689

2012).

Where,

as

here,

the

Government seeks to enforce the waiver and there is no claim
that the Government breached the plea agreement, we will enforce
the waiver if it is valid and the issue being appealed falls
within its scope.

United States v. Archie, 771 F.3d 217, 221

(4th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 1579 (2015).
2

Appeal: 14-4874

Doc: 25

Filed: 07/31/2015

Pg: 3 of 5

An appeal waiver is valid if the defendant knowingly and
intelligently

agreed

to

waive

his

appellate

rights.

United

States v. Thornsbury, 670 F.3d 532, 537 (4th Cir. 2012).
the

adequacy

of

the

plea

colloquy

is

central

While

to

this

determination, “the issue ultimately is evaluated by reference
to the totality of the circumstances[,] . . . including the
background, experience, and conduct of the accused.”

United

States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 169 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal
quotation

marks

omitted).

“[A]

waiver

is

not

knowingly

or

voluntarily made if the district court fails to specifically
question the defendant concerning the waiver provision of the
plea

agreement

during

the

Rule

11

colloquy

and

the

record

indicates that the defendant did not otherwise understand the
full significance of the waiver.”
F.3d

621,

627

(4th

Cir.

United States v. Manigan, 592

2010)

(internal

quotation

marks

omitted).
Our review of the record indicates that Manson’s waiver was
knowing and intelligent.
and

prominently

agreement.

displayed

The waiver provision was unambiguous
on

the

first

page

of

the

Manson was represented by counsel, and he testified

that he had spoken with his lawyer about the agreement.
Manson

plea

and

his

counsel

signed

the

agreement,

Both

effectively

“represent[ing] by their signatures to the plea agreement that
[Manson]

had

been

fully

advised
3

about,

and

understood,

its

Appeal: 14-4874

Doc: 25

terms.”

Filed: 07/31/2015

Blick,

description

of

408

F.3d

Manson’s

at

Pg: 4 of 5

169.

plea

Additionally,

agreement,

the

during

district

advised Manson that he waived his right to appeal.

its

court

While the

court did not explain the terms or scope of the appeal waiver,
or ask Manson whether he understood the waiver or the court’s
description of the plea agreement, these omissions, “standing
alone,

[do]

not

invalidate

the

waiver.”

United

States

Broughton-Jones, 71 F.3d 1143, 1146 (4th Cir. 1995).

v.

Viewing

the totality of the circumstances, we conclude the waiver is
valid and enforceable.
Manson

agreed

to

conviction

and

Guidelines

range

ineffective

assistance

waive

sentence,

his

except

established
of

at

counsel

right
for

to

a

appeal

sentencing
or

prosecutorial

unknown to Manson at the time of his guilty plea.

the

claims

and

his

above

sentence

both

of

misconduct
Manson was

sentenced within the applicable Guidelines range, and counsel’s
challenge

to

the

substantive

reasonableness

of

his

sentence

falls squarely within the waiver’s compass.
We have thoroughly reviewed the record in accordance with
Anders

and

have

identified

no

potentially

meritorious

that fall outside the scope of the appeal waiver.
grant

the

motion

to

dismiss

Manson’s

appeal.

issues

We therefore
This

court

requires that counsel inform Manson, in writing, of the right to
petition

the

Supreme

Court

of

the
4

United

States

for

further

Appeal: 14-4874

review.

Doc: 25

If

Filed: 07/31/2015

Manson

requests

Pg: 5 of 5

that

a

petition

be

filed,

but

counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
counsel

may

move

representation.

in

this

court

for

leave

to

withdraw

from

Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof

was served on Manson.
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

5