Case ID: f-appx_148/html/0547-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Moses WRIGHT, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 04-2111.
    United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 31, 2005.
    
    Decided Sept. 1, 2005.
    
      Robert N. Trgovich, Office of the United States Attorney, Fort Wayne, IN, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Donald C. Swanson, Jr., Swanson & Campbell, Fort Wayne, IN, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before CUDAHY, MANION, and WOOD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       After an examination of the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   ORDER

Moses Wright pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of crack cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). As part of his plea agreement, Wright waived the right to appeal his sentence on any ground. At sentencing the district court calculated a total offense level of 32, see U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(4), and criminal history category of III, resulting in a sentencing range of 151 to 188 months. In April 2004 the judge sentenced him to the guideline minimum.

On appeal Wright challenges his sentence, arguing under United States v. Booker, - U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), that his rights were violated when his sentence was increased, under a mandatory guidelines system, based on a drug quantity neither admitted by him nor found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. But Wright waived his opportunity to challenge this sentence, and though this appeal was briefed before we decided United States v. Bownes, 405 F.3d 634 (7th Cir.2005), we now know that without an “escape hatch” contemplating changes in the law, this waiver is enforceable. See Bownes, 405 F.3d at 636-37 (7th Cir.2005); see also United States v. Cieslowski, 410 F.3d 353, 362 (7th Cir.2005); United States v. Roche, 415 F.3d 614, 617 (7th Cir.2005). Therefore Wright has no right to challenge his sentence and the appeal is DISMISSED.