Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01964/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01964-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Andre Hill
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. 04-1964

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Andre Hill, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: October 19, 2005

Filed: March 8, 2006 

___________

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Andre Dwight Hill appeals from the district court’s1

 final judgment after he

pleaded guilty to one count of possessing more than 5 grams of cocaine base with

intent to distribute and one count of possessing more than 5 grams of cocaine with

intent to distribute, both in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The district court

sentenced Hill to concurrent sentences on each count of 108 months imprisonment and

4 years supervised release. For reversal, Hill argues that sufficient evidence did not

exist to support the district court’s findings that two kilograms of cocaine were

Appellate Case: 04-1964 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/08/2006 Entry ID: 2018329
-2-

attributable to him based on his relevant conduct, because he never admitted that the

two vacuum-sealed bags found in the trash outside his residence actually contained

kilogram quantities of cocaine. He also argues that the district court’s drug-quantity

finding violated his Sixth Amendment rights under Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S.

961 (2004), and that he is entitled to resentencing as he was sentenced under then

mandatory Sentencing Guidelines. 

This court dismisses Hill's appeal based upon the appeal waiver in his plea

agreement. At the January 6, 2004, plea hearing, the district court stated the plea

agreement's term, including that the "defendant has agreed to waive his appellate

rights if the Court accepts this plea agreement and sentences the defendant

accordingly." Moreover: "The defendant has agreed not to file any other actions

contesting his sentence or conviction including a lawsuit under Title 28 United States

Code Section 2255 except for claims of prosecutorial misconduct on [the prosecutor's]

part or ineffective assistance of counsel at time of sentencing." The defendant

acknowledged to the judge he understood the plea agreement, which he had signed.

Thus, the record shows that the district court engaged in the colloquy required by Fed.

R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1)(N), ensuring that the "plea agreement and corresponding waiver

[were] entered into knowingly and voluntarily" by Hill. United States v. Reeves, 410

F.3d 1031, 1034 (8th Cir. 2005) (citing United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 890 (8th

Cir. 2003)). But see United States v. Rojas-Coria, 401 F.3d 871, 872 n.2 (8th Cir.

2005) (district court did not recite colloquy, told defendant he had "right to appeal the

handling of this case" and issued him form entitled "Notice of Right to Appeal in a

Criminal Case").

Accordingly, Hill's appeal is dismissed.

Appellate Case: 04-1964 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/08/2006 Entry ID: 2018329