United States v. Shawn Schenck, 676 F. App'x 212

Defendant Shawn Schenck pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 848.
Before sentencing, Schenck moved to withdraw his guilty plea, arguing it was involuntary and lacked a sufficient factual basis.
The district court denied the motion and sentenced Schenck to 276 months' imprisonment.
Schenck timely appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the factual basis for his plea, the denial of his motion to withdraw the plea, and the length of his sentence.
The Government moved to dismiss the appeal based on Schenck’s appellate-waiver in the plea agreement; the Fourth Circuit reviewed the waiver de novo and reviewed Rule 11 proceedings for harmless error because Schenck had preserved the plea-validity challenge below.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of appellate waiver	Schenck contends waiver invalid as it rests on an involuntary/unsupported plea	Government argues waiver valid and bars the appealed claims	Waiver valid; plea found knowing and voluntary after harmless-error Rule 11 review
Sufficiency of factual basis for plea	Plea lacked sufficient factual basis; plea therefore invalid	District court ensured Rule 11 compliance; factual basis existed	Court held plea was supported by a sufficient factual basis and thus valid
Denial of motion to withdraw plea	Schenck sought withdrawal citing involuntariness and insufficient basis	Government defended denial; argued Rule 11 compliance and Moore factors weighed against withdrawal	District court did not abuse discretion in denying the motion; denial affirmed
Reasonableness of 276-month sentence	Schenck challenged sentence length as unreasonable	Government invoked appellate waiver as to sentencing challenge	Sentencing challenge dismissed under waiver; appellate review of sentence denied

United States v. Copeland, 707 F.3d 522 (4th Cir. 2013) (de novo review and enforceability of appeal waivers)
United States v. Bradley, 455 F.3d 453 (4th Cir. 2006) (Rule 11 harmless-error review for preserved plea challenges)
United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114 (4th Cir. 1991) (standard for determining validity of guilty pleas)
United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621 (4th Cir. 2010) (knowing and voluntary appellate-waiver analysis)
United States v. Johnson, 410 F.3d 137 (4th Cir. 2005) (appellate waiver does not bar challenge to denial of plea-withdrawal motion based on plea validity)
United States v. Nicholson, 676 F.3d 376 (4th Cir. 2012) (standard of review for denial of plea-withdrawal motion and presumption of finality after Rule 11 compliance)
United States v. Moore, 931 F.2d 245 (4th Cir. 1991) (nonexclusive factors for district court to consider in plea-withdrawal motions)

DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART