Reaffirming the “Sever-and-Remand” Doctrine for Defective Appeal Waivers and Sentencing Errors – Comment on United States v. Shoun Wright, Jr.

Introduction

The Fourth Circuit’s unpublished decision in United States v. Shoun Wright, Jr., No. 24-4623 (4th Cir. Aug. 18, 2025), extends and fortifies the principle articulated only months earlier in United States v. Smith, 134 F.4th 248 (4th Cir. 2025). At its core, the case addresses systemic procedural shortcomings in Rule 11 plea colloquies and sentencing hearings before the same district judge, and it crystallizes a clear remedial path: when the record reveals pervasive Rule 11 and § 3553(a) violations, any associated appeal waiver will be severed, the convictions may stand, but the sentence must be vacated and the matter reassigned for resentencing before a different judge.

The appellant, Shoun Lamelle Wright, Jr., pled guilty to serious drug and firearm offenses and initially waived most appellate rights. On appeal he contested the voluntariness of that waiver and the procedural soundness of his 240-month sentence. The Government first moved to enforce the waiver, but—after Smith—withdrew the motion and joined in asking for severance and resentencing. The Fourth Circuit obliged, affirming the convictions but vacating the sentence, ordering reassignment, and thereby cementing what is rapidly becoming a circuit‐level doctrine against perfunctory plea and sentencing practices.

Summary of the Judgment

Appeal waiver unenforceable: The Rule 11 colloquy lacked a meaningful explanation of the waiver and failed to ascertain whether it was knowing and voluntary. Consequently, the waiver was severed.
Convictions affirmed: No non-frivolous attacks on the underlying guilty plea or factual basis were identified under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
Sentence vacated: The district court committed multiple procedural errors—misapplication of § 3553(a), inadequate explanation, reliance on impermissible considerations (defendant’s termination of counsel)—rendering the 240-month sentence unreasonable.
Case remanded and reassigned: Echoing Smith, the panel ordered resentencing before a different district judge “to preserve the appearance of integrity.”

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

United States v. Smith, 134 F.4th 248 (4th Cir. 2025) – The linchpin precedent. Smith identified a “miscarriage of justice” when the same district judge relied on defective appeal waivers to insulate sentences from review. Wright applies Smith almost reflexively, confirming that the remedy announced there is not confined to its facts.
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) – Governs counsel’s duty to identify non-frivolous issues on appeal. Counsel here filed an Anders brief, triggering the court’s obligation to perform an “independent review” of the record.
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) – Provides the abuse-of-discretion framework for appellate review of sentences and underlines the need for adequate explanation.
United States v. Fowler, 948 F.3d 663 (4th Cir. 2020) – Reiterates the same procedural‐reasonableness factors later found missing in Wright’s sentencing.
United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621 (4th Cir. 2010) – Establishes that explaining an appeal waiver is “an important factor” in determining its validity.

Legal Reasoning

The panel’s reasoning unfolds in a two-step structure:

Validity of the Appeal Waiver.
Applying Smith, the court reviewed the Rule 11 transcript and found it “plainly insufficient.” The district judge failed to (a) outline the scope and effect of the waiver, (b) advise Wright that he could not withdraw the plea if displeased with the eventual sentence, and (c) verify voluntariness. Because an appeal waiver must be knowing and voluntary, the deficiencies rendered it unenforceable.
The court consciously declined to disturb the remainder of the plea agreement; it simply severed the waiver clause, a surgical remedy preventing the Government from re-opening the bargain or undermining the guilty plea.
Procedural Reasonableness of the Sentence.
Using the Gall/Fowler framework, the panel identified four major errors:
- No explicit calculation or on-the-record adoption of the advisory Guidelines range.
- No individualized application of § 3553(a) factors.
- No reasoned response to Wright’s request for a 180-month variance.
- Reliance on Wright’s prior conflicts with counsel—an impermissible consideration—to justify a harsher sentence.
Collectively, these flaws compelled vacatur. Because the errors mirrored those in Smith, the court again opted for reassignment to a different judge “to preserve the appearance of integrity,” invoking its supervisory power.

Impact on Future Litigation

Institutional Warning: The decision sends a strong message to district courts—especially within the Eastern District of North Carolina—that perfunctory Rule 11 colloquies and rote sentencing rationales are unsustainable.
“Sever-and-Remand” as a Circuit Doctrine: Although unpublished, Wright reinforces Smith’s published rule. Future defendants hamstrung by questionable waivers before the same or similarly lax judges will rely on Wright/Smith to unlock appellate review.
Pressure to Reform Local Practice: Repeated reassignments not only vindicate individual rights but also encourage internal administrative responses such as enhanced judicial training or re-allocation of criminal calendars.
Heightened Scrutiny of Appeal Waivers: The opinion underscores that waivers are not self-executing shields; they demand vigilant Rule 11 compliance. Prosecutors and defense counsel are incentivized to insist on meticulous colloquies to avoid later unraveling.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Rule 11 Colloquy: A mandatory, on-the-record dialogue between judge and defendant ensuring the plea is voluntary, informed, and factually supported—including explicit discussion of any appeal waiver.
Appeal Waiver: A clause within a plea agreement where the defendant relinquishes specified rights to challenge the conviction/sentence. It cannot waive claims unknown to the defendant or bar review of sentences imposed in violation of law or procedural safeguards.
Procedural Reasonableness: A sentencing benchmark asking how the court reached its number—did it compute the Guidelines, consider statutory factors, and explain itself? Distinct from substantive reasonableness (i.e., whether the length is excessive).
Career Offender Designation (U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1): When a defendant has at least two prior felony crimes of violence or controlled-substance offenses, the Guidelines elevate the offense level and criminal-history category, significantly increasing advisory ranges.
Plain Error Review: An appellate standard requiring (1) error, (2) plainness, (3) effect on substantial rights, and (4) a reason to correct the error to protect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.

Conclusion

United States v. Shoun Wright, Jr. is the latest chapter in the Fourth Circuit’s ongoing effort to police the integrity of plea and sentencing procedures, particularly when blanket appeal waivers threaten to foreclose meaningful review. The court’s willingness to sever defective waivers, vacate sentences, and reassign cases underscores a broader institutional commitment: constitutional and procedural safeguards are non-negotiable, and their violation triggers robust appellate remedies. Practitioners should expect intensified scrutiny of waiver language, heightened Rule 11 rigor, and an emboldened appellate court ready to intervene when district-court shortcuts imperil justice.