Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01298/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01298-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Edmundo R. Rosales
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Dean Whipple, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Western District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1298

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Western

v. * District of Missouri.

*

Edmundo R. Rosales, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: October 18, 2004

 Filed: November 2, 2004

___________

Before MURPHY, HEANEY, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Edmundo Rosales pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute cocaine.

The district court1

 found him responsible for 12 kilograms of cocaine and 365 pounds

of marijuana with a base offense level of 32, and it sentenced him to serve 121

months. Rosales appeals, arguing that the drug quantity was incorrectly determined

and that he should have received a base offense level of 26. We affirm the judgment.

Appellate Case: 04-1298 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/02/2004 Entry ID: 1829152 
-2-

Rosales was charged with two counts of conspiracy to distribute cocaine. He

entered into a plea agreement under which he agreed to plead guilty to the first count,

and the government agreed in turn to dismiss the second count. The parties also

reached agreement on some sentencing aspects. They agreed that the amount of

cocaine for which Rosales was responsible was at least 500 grams and that his base

offense level was at least 26. They also anticipated that Rosales would receive a three

level reduction for acceptance of responsibility. He failed to appear on the date set

for sentencing, however, and consequently lost credit for acceptance and received a

two level enhancement for obstruction of justice. In the plea agreement Rosales also

made a detailed waiver of his right to appeal his sentence.

In his plea agreement, Rosales "expressly waive[d] the right to appeal his

sentence, directly or collaterally, on any ground except for an upward departure by

the sentencing judge, a sentence in excess of the statutory maximum, or a sentence

in violation of law apart from the Sentencing Guidelines." This waiver was far

reaching, and Rosales also "agree[d] not to appeal or otherwise challenge the

constitutionality or legality of the Sentencing Guidelines." Rosales nevertheless now

seeks to argue on appeal that the district court erred in its sentencing findings and its

application of the guidelines.

Rosales claims that the evidence connecting him to 11 kilograms of cocaine

and 360 pounds of marijuana was unreliable and that those amounts should not have

been attributed to him. By his calculation, he should have been found responsible for

less than two kilograms of cocaine, for a base offense level of 26, and his sentencing

range should have been 63-78 months. Since his appeal does not challenge any

upward departure, a sentence above the statutory maximum, or a nonguideline error,

we conclude it is covered by the waiver in his plea agreement.

When a defendant enters a waiver of appeal knowingly and voluntarily as

Rosales concedes he did, the waiver will be enforced absent a miscarriage of justice.

Appellate Case: 04-1298 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/02/2004 Entry ID: 1829152 
2

Rosales moved to file a supplemental brief addressing Blakely v. Washington,

124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), contending that his Sixth Amendment rights were violated

by the district court's finding of drug quantity, but our administrative order provides

that supplemental briefing will not be considered until after the Supreme Court acts.

-3-

United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 891 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Rosales argues

that the sentence he received is a miscarriage of justice because the district court's

finding of drug quantity rested on "flimsy" evidence. We have recognized that the

miscarriage of justice exception is "extremely narrow" and designed to correct

sentences not authorized by the judgment of conviction or outside the statutory range.

Id. at 892. There is no indication that a miscarriage of justice occurred in this case

from the district court's weighing of the evidence presented at the sentencing hearing

or its calculation of the amount of drugs for which Rosales was responsible.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed, but our mandate will not issue

until after the Supreme Court releases its opinions in United States v. Booker and

United States v. Fanfan.

2

 See Administrative Order Regarding Blakely Cases dated

September 27, 2004. Counsel's request to withdraw at this time is therefore denied.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-1298 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/02/2004 Entry ID: 1829152