Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04099/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04099-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Melanie Fortner
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., United States District Judge for the

Western District of Missouri. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-4099

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* Western District of Missouri.

Melanie Fortner, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. * 

___________

 Submitted: May 18, 2006

 Filed: May 24, 2006 

___________

Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges. 

___________

PER CURIAM.

Melanie Fortner (Fortner) appeals her 188-month sentence imposed by the

district court1

 after she pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute in excess

of 500 grams of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),

(b)(1)(A)(viii), and 846. We affirm.

Appellate Case: 05-4099 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/24/2006 Entry ID: 2048259
2

The district court found two other co-defendants responsible for in excess of

fifteen kilograms of methamphetamine. 

-2-

In the plea agreement, Fortner admitted to a relevant drug quantity “in excess

of 15 kilograms of methamphetamine.” Also in the plea agreement, Fortner waived

her right to appeal any issues to which the parties agreed under the terms of the plea

agreement. The presentence investigation report (PSR), in conformity with the plea

agreement, attributed in excess of fifteen kilograms of methamphetamine to Fortner,

establishing a base offense level of 38. Fortner did not object to the PSR’s estimate

of drug quantity.

After an evidentiary hearing, the district court, over the government’s objection,

granted Fortner a 3-level Guidelines reduction for acceptance of responsibility,

resulting in an adjusted offense level of 35. Given Fortner’s criminal history category

of II, the advisory Guidelines range was 188 to 235 months’ imprisonment. The

district court sentenced Fortner at the bottom of the advisory Guidelines range. 

Fortner now challenges her sentence, arguing it is unreasonable because the

district court earlier found two of her co-defendants responsible for less than 1.5

kilograms of methamphetamine.2

 In response, the government contends Fortner

waived her right to appeal the issue of drug quantity. We agree. See United States

v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (holding a valid waiver of

appellate rights forecloses appeal of sentencing issues). Although the district court

attributed less than 1.5 kilograms of methamphetamine to two of Fortner’s codefendants, Fortner stipulated in her plea agreement to a relevant drug quantity in

excess of fifteen kilograms of methamphetamine. Fortner’s knowing and voluntary

stipulation to the drug quantity, with no objection to the PSR’s drug quantity finding

or to the court’s acceptance of her drug quantity agreement, constituted a valid waiver.

See United States v. Townsend, 408 F.3d 1020, 1021-22 n.2 (8th Cir. 2005) (holding

a district court at sentencing may accept as true any factual allegations contained in

Appellate Case: 05-4099 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/24/2006 Entry ID: 2048259
-3-

a PSR unless the defendant specifically objects to those facts); United States v. Early,

77 F.3d 242, 244 (8th Cir. 1996) (holding a defendant may not challenge an

application of the Guidelines to which she stipulated in a plea agreement, unless she

alleges and proves the agreement is invalid or she otherwise succeeds in withdrawing

from it).

Accordingly, we affirm Fortner’s sentence. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-4099 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/24/2006 Entry ID: 2048259