US v. Shannon Ashworth

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to dismiss appeal [999850033-2]. Originating case number: 8:15-cr-00221-TMC-4. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [999918760]. [16-4168, 16-4199, 16-4230]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-4168 Doc: 53 Filed: 08/29/2016 Pg: 1 of 4 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-4168 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SHANNON D. ASHWORTH, Defendant - Appellant. No. 16-4199 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JASON A. TOMSHA, Defendant - Appellant. No. 16-4230 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Appeal: 16-4168 Doc: 53 Filed: 08/29/2016 Pg: 2 of 4 JAMES M. DAY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (8:15-cr-00221-TMC-4; 8:15-cr-00221-TMC-14, 8:15-cr00221-TMC-17) Submitted: August 25, 2016 Decided: August 29, 2016 Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ray Coit Yarborough, Jr., LAW OFFICE OF RAY COIT YARBOROUGH, JR., Florence, South Carolina; Joshua Snow Kendrick, KENDRICK & LEONARD, P.C., Greenville, South Carolina; Derek J. Enderlin, ROSS AND ENDERLIN, PA, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellants. William Jacob Watkins, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 Appeal: 16-4168 Doc: 53 Filed: 08/29/2016 Pg: 3 of 4 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Shannon D. Ashworth, Jason A. Tomsha, and James M. Day (“Appellants”) convictions and sentences for conspiracy appeal to their defraud Government, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (2012). the On appeal, counsel for Appellants filed a joint brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning the reasonableness of their sentences. appeals as barred The Government has moved to dismiss the by the appellate waivers contained in the Appellants’ written plea agreements. Pursuant to a plea agreement, a defendant may waive his appellate rights under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (2012). United States v. Archie, 771 F.3d 217, 221 (4th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 1579 (2015). A waiver will preclude an appeal of “a specific issue if . . . the waiver is valid and the issue being appealed is within the scope of the waiver.” waiver is valid intelligently.” if he agreed to Id. it A defendant’s “knowingly and United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 627 (4th Cir. 2010). Whether a defendant validly waived his right to appeal is a question of law that we review de novo. United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir. 2005). Upon review of the plea agreement and the transcript of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing, 3 we conclude that Appellants Appeal: 16-4168 Doc: 53 knowingly and convictions appeal Filed: 08/29/2016 voluntarily and clearly waived sentences. fall Therefore, we Appellants’ The within grant appeals. Pg: 4 of 4 the We the the to sentencing scope motion have right of to claims this the their raised on broad dismiss reviewed appeal waiver. and dismiss entire record in accordance with Anders and have found no meritorious issues for appeal outside the scope of the waiver. This court requires that counsel inform each Appellant, in writing, United of the States right for to petition further review. the If Supreme any of Court the of the Appellants 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. motion must state that a copy thereof was Counsel’s served on the Appellants. 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 4

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?