Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03343/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03343-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kinsley Bateman
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Henry E. Autrey, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3343

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Eastern District of Missouri.

*

Kinsley Bateman, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 17, 2004

 Filed: December 21, 2004

___________

Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Kinsley Bateman pleaded guilty to a charge of being a felon in possession of

a firearm, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The District Court1

 sentenced him to 180 months

in prison, the sentence recommended by the government under the terms of the plea

agreement. On appeal, Bateman claims that he did not understand the nature of the

charge against him; that the mutual waiver of appeal rights in the plea agreement was

not valid as to him; that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) exceeds Congress's power under the

Commerce Clause; and that he was sentenced in violation of his constitutional rights

Appellate Case: 03-3343 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/21/2004 Entry ID: 1846841 
2

To the extent Bateman claims that the statute is invalid under the Commerce

Clause, the claim is a jurisdictional one, not subject to waiver. This Court has clearly

held on more than one occasion that the statute (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)) represents a

valid exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. United States v.

Gary, 341 F.3d 829, 835 (8th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 124 S. Ct. 1128 (2004); United

States v. Shepherd, 284 F.3d 965, 969 (8th Cir. 2002); United States v. Bates, 77 F.3d

1101, 1104 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 884 (1996).

-2-

because a jury did not find, and Bateman did not admit to the facts to support a

finding, that he was an armed career criminal. Because we conclude that Bateman's

waiver of his right to appeal was valid, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.2

Before a district court can accept a guilty plea, Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of

Criminal Procedure requires that the court conduct a hearing in open court, with the

defendant under oath. If the plea agreement includes a waiver of the right to appeal,

"the court must inform the defendant of, and determine that the defendant

understands," the terms of that waiver. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1)(N). Moreover, the

District Court must ensure that the defendant has knowingly and voluntarily waived

his right to appeal. United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 890–91 (8th Cir.) (en banc),

cert. denied, 124 S. Ct. 501 (2003). According to Bateman, the District Court failed

to fulfill its responsibilities at the Rule 11 hearing. As a consequence, he argues, the

waiver is not valid, and this Court therefore has jurisdiction to address the merits of

his appeal.

On the second page of the written plea agreement between Bateman and the

United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri is an explicit mutual

waiver of rights to appeal, with limited exceptions. The agreement was signed by

Bateman, his attorney, and an assistant United States attorney (AUSA). Bateman

testified under oath at the plea hearing that he had reviewed the agreement with his

attorney. The AUSA then recited the substance of the written agreement, including

the mutual waiver of rights to appeal, and Bateman testified that he agreed that the

Appellate Case: 03-3343 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/21/2004 Entry ID: 1846841 
-3-

government's description of the agreement was correct. At the time of the hearing,

Bateman was a competent, forty-seven-year-old man with two years of college

education and was familiar with the criminal justice system. Despite Bateman's

claims to the contrary, we hold that the record shows that the waiver of appellate

rights complies with Rule 11(b)(1)(N) as interpreted by this Court in Andis. We do

not disagree with Bateman's suggestion that the court might have spent more time at

the hearing on the appeal waiver, but we do not agree that a detailed colloquy on the

subject was required in this case for the waiver to be valid.

The appeal is dismissed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-3343 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/21/2004 Entry ID: 1846841