Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03819/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03819-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Deandre Fugate
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3819

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri

Deandre Fugate, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: November 18, 2005

Filed: December 16, 2005

___________

Before BYE, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, Deandre Fugate appeals from the final judgment

entered in the District Court1

 for the Western District of Missouri after he pleaded

guilty to possession with intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana, in

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. After granting the

government’s motion for a substantial-assistance departure, the district court

sentenced Fugate to 46 months imprisonment and 4 years supervised release. Counsel

has moved to withdraw on appeal and has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.

Appellate Case: 04-3819 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/16/2005 Entry ID: 1986750
-2-

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that an appeal waiver contained in the plea

agreement is not binding because the district court did not ensure that Fugate

understood the waiver’s terms before accepting his plea, and that the district court

erred in refusing to grant a greater departure. In a supplemental brief, counsel argues

the district court plainly erred under United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005),

by treating the Guidelines as mandatory, and the sentence imposed was unreasonable.

For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

Because the district court did not engage in the required colloquy at the plea

hearing, we do not enforce the appeal waiver. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1)(N)

(before accepting guilty plea, court must inform defendant of, and determine he

understands, plea-agreement terms waiving appeal rights); United States v. RojasCoria, 401 F.3d 871, 872 n.2 (8th Cir. 2005) (not enforcing appeal waiver where pleaand sentencing-hearing transcripts indicated court did not engage in Rule 11(b)(1)(N)

colloquy). We cannot, however, review the extent of the substantial-assistance

departure, see United States v. Pepper, 412 F.3d 995, 997 (8th Cir. 2005), or the

district court’s decision not to depart under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3 given the court’s

awareness of its authority to depart, see United States v. Mohr, 407 F.3d 898, 902 (8th

Cir.) (per curiam) (denial of downward departure based on over-representative

criminal history is unreviewable where district court was aware of its authority to

depart), cert. denied, (U.S. Nov. 14, 2005) (No. 05-7020).

We also find no plain error in the district court’s mandatory application of the

Guidelines, because we conclude Fugate cannot show, based on the record as a whole,

that he would have received a more favorable sentence under an advisory Guidelines

regime. See United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543, 552-53 (8th Cir.) (en banc) (plainerror test), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 266 (2005). Although the district court expressed

dissatisfaction with “the system,” the court stated that it could not in good conscience

give Fugate a sentence less than 46 months, which was what a less culpable

codefendant had received. See United States v. Parsons, 408 F.3d 519, 522 (8th Cir.

Appellate Case: 04-3819 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/16/2005 Entry ID: 1986750
-3-

2005) (per curiam) (although district court stated sentence called for by Guidelines

“might be slightly high,” court also stated that sentence was “appropriate in this case”;

appeals court found that statements in their entirety were “equivocal at best” and that

defendant thus had not satisfied third factor of plain-error test). 

After reviewing the record independently for any nonfrivolous issues, see

Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we have found none. Accordingly, we grant

counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3819 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/16/2005 Entry ID: 1986750