Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02177/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02177-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Andy Roger Baccam
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

 The Honorable John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-2177

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States 

v. * District Court of Minnesota.

* 

Andy Roger Baccam, * [PUBLISHED]

*

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: August 26, 2004

 Filed: July 13, 2005 

___________

Before MELLOY, LAY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM

Andy Roger Baccam appeals his sentence of 248 months’ imprisonment

imposed by the district court.1

 We affirm.

Appellate Case: 03-2177 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/13/2005 Entry ID: 1927391
-2-

As part of a plea agreement, Baccam pled guilty to two counts: (1) possession

with intent to distribute methamphetamine; and (2) possession of a firearm during a

drug trafficking crime. The plea agreement contained a waiver of Baccam’s appeal

rights. Before sentencing, Baccam sought a downward departure due to an overstated

criminal history. At the sentencing hearing, Baccam argued that a downward

departure should apply because his status as a career offender overstated the extent

and seriousness of his criminal history. The court denied the motion for a downward

departure and issued a sentence of 188 months for the first count and 60 months for

the second count to be served consecutively. 

Baccam filed a notice of appeal pro se and told his counsel that he intended to

seek new representation. However, a motion for substitution of counsel was neither

served nor filed. Subsequently, his counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), articulating Baccam’s claims for appeal. At our

request, both parties prepared supplemental briefing on whether the district court’s

finding that Baccam was a career offender was contrary to the United States Supreme

Court’s holding in United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005).

Having carefully reviewed the briefs and the record, we find no non-frivolous

issues that merit discussion, other than the question of whether the appeal waiver

encompasses a Booker claim. 

Pursuant to his plea agreement with the government, Baccam surrendered any

right to appeal his sentence. There is nothing in the record to indicate that any

potential claims by Baccam would fall outside of the scope of the appeal waiver.

Further, the record indicates that Baccam’s waiver was knowing and voluntary. As

a result, the only reason for us to not enforce the appeal waiver would be if the

sentence was “illegal” and that upholding it would represent a “miscarriage of

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

Appellate Case: 03-2177 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/13/2005 Entry ID: 1927391
-3-

In a case similar to this one, United States v. Burns, 2005 WL 1366430, *2 (8th

Cir. Jun. 10, 2005), applying Andis, we held that the defendant’s appeal of a career

offender finding subject to Booker did not override an appeal waiver. In Burns, we

held that the “extremely narrow” exception in Andis did not apply to cases where the

sentence was within the existing statutory range. Burns, 2005 WL 1366430 at *2.

Since Baccam was sentenced according to then-existing binding rules regarding

career offender status, his waiver of appeal is binding even if he has appealable issues

pursuant to Booker. Burns, 2005 WL 1366430 at *2; see also United States v. Davis,

2005 WL 1342444, *1 (8th Cir. Jun. 8, 2005); United States v. Fogg, 2005 WL

1186535, *2 (8th Cir. May 20, 2005). “Unless expressly reserved . . . the right to

appellate relief under Booker is among the rights waived by a valid appeal waiver.”

Fogg, 2005 WL 1186535 at *2.

As a result, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

LAY, Circuit Judge, concurring.

I concur in the judgment of the court. I write separately to highlight the limited

efficacy of an inflexible federal criminal justice policy that responds to the epidemic

of drug crimes without adequately addressing the root cause of this epidemic – drug

addiction. Many states have created specialized drug courts that approach this

epidemic with much greater success. In most drug courts, nonviolent, substanceabusing offenders charged with drug-related crimes are channeled into judicially

supervised substance abuse treatment, mandatory drugs testing, and other

rehabilitative services in an effort to reduce recidivism. Eligible offenders typically

have the charges against them stayed and dropped if treatment is successful, or plead

guilty with prosecution deferred and criminal punishment withheld if treatment is

successful. Evidence shows that the flexible and pro-active approach of drug courts

reduces recidivism rates to less than half of the recidivism rate of those offenders who

are simply imprisoned for their drug crimes. Unfortunately, the federal criminal

Appellate Case: 03-2177 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/13/2005 Entry ID: 1927391
-4-

justice system offers no such alternatives for nonviolent, substance-abusing offenders.

Given the tremendous economic and human costs of imprisoning nonviolent drug

offenders, Congress should seriously consider creating federal drug courts. Federal

drug courts would save a significant amount of money for taxpayers.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-2177 Page: 4 Date Filed: 07/13/2005 Entry ID: 1927391