Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01100/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01100-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Golden Longwell
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1100

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff/Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States 

v. * District Court for the Western

* District of Missouri.

Golden Longwell, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Defendant/Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: January 9, 2006

Filed: January 19, 2006

___________

Before BYE, HEANEY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM. 

Golden Longwell pleaded guilty to conspiracy to manufacture

methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), and 846. He

appeals his sentence arguing the district court1

 erroneously sentenced him as a career

offender under United States Sentencing Guidelines § 4B1.1. We dismiss the appeal.

Appellate Case: 05-1100 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/19/2006 Entry ID: 1998817
-2-

Longwell entered into a plea agreement with the government agreeing to plead

guilty to the conspiracy count. At sentencing, the district court found Longwell's two

prior felony drug convictions made him a career offender under § 4B1.1. On appeal,

Longwell contends the district court erred in applying the career offender provision

because the underlying fact findings were not submitted to a jury or admitted. The

government argues the appeal should be dismissed because Longwell waived his right

to appeal his sentence. We agree.

The plea agreement stated Longwell's sentence would be "determined pursuant

to the United States Sentencing Guidelines," and he agreed not to "appeal or otherwise

challenge the constitutionality or legality of the Sentencing Guidelines." Longwell

expressly waived "the right to appeal his sentence, directly or collaterally, on any

ground except for an upward departure . . . a sentence in excess of the statutory

maximum, or a sentence in violation of law apart from the Sentencing Guidelines."

Longwell contends the appeal waiver does not prohibit his appeal because application

of the career offender provision in his case amounts to an upward departure.

Longwell's inaccurate characterization of the district court's application of the

career offender provision as an upward departure does not save his appeal from the

waiver. Furthermore, even if Longwell could escape the waiver's grasp, we have

previously rejected the Sixth Amendment argument he asserts on appeal. See United

States v. Reeves, 410 F.3d 1031, 1035 (8th Cir. 2005) ("In Booker, the Supreme Court

expressly confirmed the continuing validity of its holding in Apprendi v. New Jersey,

530 U.S. 466 (2000), that the fact of a prior conviction need not be submitted to the

jury or proved beyond a reasonable doubt.") (internal quotation omitted).

The appeal is dismissed. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1100 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/19/2006 Entry ID: 1998817