US v. Shaun Isiah-Jeffrey Hinson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:14-cr-00076-MOC-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999684811].. [15-4049]

Appeal: 15-4049

Doc: 32

Filed: 10/23/2015

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4049

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
SHAUN ISIAH-JEFFREY HINSON,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:14-cr-00076-MOC-1)

Submitted:

September 16, 2015

Decided:

October 23, 2015

Before SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Chiege O. Kalu Okwara, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville,
North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4049

Doc: 32

Filed: 10/23/2015

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Shaun Isiah-Jeffrey Hinson pleaded guilty to armed robbery,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), (d) (2012); brandishing a
firearm during a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c)

(2012);

§ 2113(a).

and

robbery,

in

violation

of

18

U.S.C.

The district court sentenced Hinson to 84 months of

imprisonment for the robbery counts, and the statutory mandatory
minimum of 84 months of imprisonment for the firearm offense, to
run consecutively, and Hinson now appeals.

Appellate counsel

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

questioning

agreement

and

whether

whether

the

the

Government

district

breached

court

erred

Hinson’s guilty plea to the firearm charge.

in

the

plea

accepting

Hinson filed a pro

se supplemental brief raising additional issues. *

Finding no

error, we affirm.
Counsel first questions whether the Government breached the
plea

agreement

by

failing

substantial assistance.
the

district

Puckett

v.

court,

United

we

to

move

for

a

departure

for

As Hinson did not raise this issue in
review

States,

556

this
U.S.

claim
129,

for

133-35

plain

error.

(2009).

To

establish plain error, Hinson must demonstrate that a clear or

*

We have reviewed the issues raised in Hinson’s pro se
supplemental brief and conclude they lack merit.

2

Appeal: 15-4049

Doc: 32

Filed: 10/23/2015

Pg: 3 of 4

obvious defect occurred that affected his substantial rights and
that we should recognize the error because it “seriously affects
the

fairness,

proceedings.”

integrity

or

public

reputation

of

judicial

Id. at 135 (alterations and internal quotation

marks omitted).
We construe a plea agreement pursuant to the principles of
contract interpretation.
353 (4th Cir. 2012).

United States v. Davis, 689 F.3d 349,
“[W]hile each party should receive the

benefit of its bargain, the government is bound only by the
promises it actually made to induce the defendant’s plea.”
(internal quotation marks omitted).

Id.

Here, as the Government

reserved the discretion to determine whether to seek a departure
based

on

conclude

substantial
that

Hinson

assistance
has

failed

in

the
to

plea

agreement,

demonstrate

that

we
the

Government breached the agreement.
Counsel also questions whether the court erred in accepting
Hinson’s guilty plea to the firearm offense as Hinson now claims
that the firearm he possessed during the first robbery was not
real.
Federal

In the context of guilty pleas, Rule 11(b)(3) of the
Rules

of

Criminal

Procedure

explains

that

“[b]efore

entering judgment on a guilty plea, the court must determine
that there is a factual basis for the plea.”
11(b)(3).

Fed. R. Crim. P.

Because Hinson did not object to the factual basis

for his plea before the district court, our review is for plain
3

Appeal: 15-4049

Doc: 32

Filed: 10/23/2015

Pg: 4 of 4

error.

United States v. Massenburg, 564 F.3d 337, 342 (4th Cir.

2009).

We conclude that the district court did not err in

accepting Hinson’s guilty plea, based on his stipulation to the
statement

of

facts

demonstrating

his

guilt

of

the

firearm

offense.
We have examined the entire record in accordance with the
requirements of Anders and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district

court.

This

writing,

of

court

the

requires

right

to

that

petition

United States for further review.

counsel
the

inform

Supreme

Hinson,

Court

of

in
the

If Hinson 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 Hinson.

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 in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

4