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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]
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UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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?