FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT JANUARY 21, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK

Honora ble Richard Mills, United States District Judg e for the Central District of * I llinois , sitti ngby

designation. [ P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 04- 10874

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 2 - 6 0 0 4 9 - C R - DT KH U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s A N G E L A A N N R U B B O , a .k .a . A n g ie , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe r n D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( J a nua r y 21, 2005)

B ef ore C A RN E S and C O X , C i rc ui tJudg es , and M IL L S , D i stri ctJudg e. *2

C A RN E S , C i rc ui tJudg e: T hi s C ou rthas pre vi ou sl y uph el d the enforce abi l i ty of app ea l w ai vers that a r e know i ngl y a nd vol unt a r i l y e nt e r e d. E . g. , U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B us he r t , 997 F . 2d 1343 ( 11th C i r . 1993) . W e ha ve e xpl a i ne d how the y s e r ve i m por t a nti nt e r e s t s of the de f e nda nta s w e l l a s the gove r nm e nt , U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B uc ha na n, 131 F . 3d 1 0 0 5 , 1 0 0 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) , a n d w e c o u ld h a v e a d d e d th e ju d ic ia l s y s te m its e lf to the l i stof benefi ci ar i es . W e have al so hel d that“ [a ] w ai ver of the ri gh tt o app ea l i nc l ude s a w a i ve rof

the r i ghtt o appe a l di f

f i c ul torde ba t a bl e l e ga l i s s ue s — i nde e d, i ti ncl ud es a w ai ver of the ri gh tt o app ea l bl at anterror. ” U ni t ed S t at es v. H ow l e, 16 6 F . 3d 11 66 , 11 69 (11t h C i r. 19 99 ) ( foot no t e om i tt ed). A nge l a R ubbo doe s notdi s put e a ny of tha t , buts he doe s c ont e nd tha tthe appe a l w a i ve rs he a gr e e d t o a s pa r tof he rpl e a ba r ga i n oughtnotpr e ve nthe rf r om r a is in g s e n te n c in g is s u e s a r is in g u n d e rth e S u p r e m e C o u r t’s r e c e n t d e c is io n in U n ite d S ta te s v . B o o k e r , 5 4 3 U .S . ___ , ___ S .C t. _

__ , 2 0 0 5 W L 5 0 1 0 8 ( 2 0 0 5 ) . H e ra r gum e ntc e nt e r s a r ound the “ m a xi m um pe r m i tt e d by s t a tut e ” e xc e pt i on i n the w a i ve rs he e nt e r e d. I ti s a n i nt e r e s t i ng a r gum e nt , butul t i m a t e l y nota pe r s ua s i ve o n e . A s i xty - thr e e c ounti ndi c tm e ntc ha r ge d R ubbo w i th m a i l f r a ud, w i r e f

r a ud, m on ey l aund er i ng , and v ar i ou s c on spi ra ci es , st em m i ng fr om a m ul t i -m i l l i on do l l ar3

t el em arket i ng fr aud o pera t i on thatshe a nd her three sons ra n. T hrou gh pl ea nego t i at i on s w i th p rose cut ors, R ub bo ’ s a tt orney m anaged t o w hi tt l e the charges d o w n to o n e : c o n s p ir a c y to c o m m it m a il a n d w ir e f r a u d in v io la tio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § 3 7 1 . I n r e tu r n f

o rth e g o v e r n m e n ta g r e e i n g t o d i s m i s s th e r e m a i n i n g s i x ty - two co u n t s ag ai n sth er an d fo r o th er fav o rs atsen t en ci n g , R u b b o ag reed t o p l ead g u i l ty, coop er at e, and w ai ve her r i gh tt o app ea l any s ent ence she r ec ei ved subj ec tt o a fe w e x c e p tio n s . A f

te rtw o h e a r in g s , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t g r a n te d R u b b o ’s m o tio n to c ha nge he rpl e a t o gui l ty , a c c e pt e d tha tne w pl e a , a nd a dj udi c a t e d R ubbo gui l ty of th e o n e c o u n t o f

v io la tin g § 3 7 1 . D ur i ng the c our s e of

one of thos e he a r i ngs , the di s tr i c tc our te nga ge d i n a col l oq uy w i th R ub bo i n w hi ch i tensure d thatshe f ul l y und er st oo d the appeal w a i ve rpa r tof

he rpl e a a gr e e m e nta nd vol unt a r i l y c ons e nt e d t o i t . T o the e xt e nt thatR ub bo cont ends thatshe di d n otkn ow i ng l y a nd vo l un t ar i l y a gree t o the appeal w a i ve r , w e r e

j e c ttha tc ont e nt i on be c a us e i ti s i nc ons i s t e ntw i th the r e c or d. Ats e n t e n c i n g , th e d i s tr i c tc o u r ti m p o s e d o v e rR u b b o ’ s o b j e c t i o n s two en h an cem en t s. O n e w as a tw o -l ev el en h an cem en tei th er b ecau se th e o ffen se i nv ol ved rel ocat i ng a f

raud ul entsc hem e t o ano ther j uri sdi ct i on t o el ud e l aw e nf or c e m e nt , U . S . S . G . § 2F 1. 1( b) ( 5) ( A ) ( N ov. 1998) , orbe c a us e i tus e d s ophi s t i c a t e d m e a ns , U . S . S . G . § 2F 1. 1( b) ( 5) ( C ) ( N ov. 1998) . T he othe rw a s a tw o-4

l evel enhancem entfor bei ng an organi ze r or l ea der of acr i m i nal ac t i vi ty that i n v o l v e d f

i v e o rm o r e p a r t i c i p a n t s o rwa s o th e r wi s e e x t e n s i v e , p u r s u a n tt o U. S . S . G. § 3 B 1 . 1 (c) (N o v . 1 9 9 8 ). T h e d i stri ctco u rtu l t i m at el y sen t en ced R u b b o t o fo rtye i ghtm onths ’ i m pr i s onm e nt , tw e l ve s hor tof the s t a tut or y c ap of

s i xty m onths f

or the c r i m e . S e e 18 U . S . C . § 371. N otw i ths t a ndi ng he rpr om i s e tha ts he w oul d notappe a l , R ubbo di d. S he fi l ed a bri ef

cont endi ng that the i m pos i t i ons of the e nha nc e m e nt s w e r e e r r one ous ap p l i cat i o n s o f th e g u i d el i n es. T h e g o v e r n m e n t r e s p o n d e d w ith a m o tio n to di s m i s s R ubbo’ s appe a l ba s e d upon the w a i ve r . S e e ge ne r a l l y B uc ha na n, 131 F . 3d a t1008–09 ( di s m i s s a l of appe a l ba s e d upon w a i ve rs houl d, i f pos s i bl e , oc c uron m ot i on before the go vernm ent ’ s bri ef i s f i l ed). R ubbo f i l e d a r e pl y t o the gove r nm e nt ’ s di s m i s s a l m ot i on i n w hi c h s he i ndi c a t e d tha ti n l i ghtof the i nt e r ve ni ng de c i s i on i n B l a ke l y v. W a s hi ngt on, 542 U . S . ___, 124 S . C t . 2531 ( 2004) , s he w a nt e d t o r a i s e on appe a l the i s s ue of w hether the j ud ge-i m po se d enh ance m ent s s he had at t ac ked i n h eri ni t i al bri ef , w hi c h c oi nc i de nt a l l y ha d be e n f i l e d on the ve r y da y tha tB l a ke l y w a s r e l e a s e d, w e r e unc ons t i tut i ona l l y i m pos e d i n vi ol a t i on of the S i xth A m e ndm e nt . R ubbo ar gu ed thati ss ue w as ou t si de the sc op e of herappeal w ai ver because, i f s he w er e ri gh ton the m er i t s of i t , the se nt ence i m po se d o n h erexce eded the “ st atut oryBe causeRubbo did not raise the B lakely issue in her opening brief, the g overnment 1 contends that she is proc edurally barred from arguing it. See United States v. L evy, 379 F.3d 1241, 1242–45 (11th Cir.) (B lakely-ty pe claim waived by

failureto raise it in initial brief on appeal), reh’ gdenied 391 F .3d 1327 (en ba nc) ( 2004); see also United States v. Njau, 386 F.3d 10 39 , 1 04 2 ( 11 th C ir . 2 00 4) (s ame ). Rubbo urg e s u s n ot to a pp ly theus ual r

ulebe c a us esh etol d theg ov e rnment in h e r re sp on seto i ts m oti on to dism iss that sh ewa s g oingto raisetheB lake ly issue and thereby

g ave theg overnment an opportunity to brief the issue in its own openingbrief. We need not address that novel proc edural argument beca use Rubbo’s appe al is due to be dismiss ed as a

result of the a

ppeal waiver irrespec tive of any proce dural ba

r. 5 m a x im u m ” a s d e f

in e d in B la k e ly a n d h e rw a iv e re x p lic itly e x c e p te d s e n te n c e s in e x c e s s o f th e s t a tu t o r y ma x i mu m. 1 T h e ap p eal w ai v er p arag rap h i n th e p l ea ag reem en tth atR u b b o si g n ed says th is : T he defendanti s a w ar e thatT i t l e 18, U ni t ed S t at es C od e,

S e c t i on 3742 a f

f or ds the de f

e nda ntthe r i ghtt o appe a l the s e n te n c e im p o s e d in th is c a s e . A c k n o w le d g in g th is , in exchange for the un dert aki ng s m ade by the U ni t ed S t at es in th is p le a a g r e e m e n t, th e d e f e n d a n t h e r e b y w a iv e s a ll r i ght s c onf

e r r e d by T i t l e 18, U ni t e d S t a t e s C ode , S e c t i on 3742 t o appe a l a ny s e nt e nc e i m pos e d, i nc l udi ng a ny r e s t i tut i on or de r , ort o appe a l the m a nne ri n w hi c h the s e nt e nc e w a s i m pos e d, unl e s s the s e nt e nc e e xc e e ds the m axi m um perm i tt ed by st atut e or i s the re sul tof an up w ar d d epar ture f

rom the gu i del i ne ra ng e the C ou rt es t abl i shes atse nt enci ng . T he defendantfurther u n d e r s ta n d s th a t n o th in g in th is p le a a g r e e m e n t s h a ll af fe ctthe go vernm ent ’ s r i gh tand/ or du ty t o app ea l as se t forth i n 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 74 2(b). H ow ever , i f the U ni t ed S ta te s ap p e a ls th e d e f

e n d a n t’s s e n te n c e p u r s u a n t to S e c t i on 3742( b) , the de f e nda nts ha l l be r e l e a s e d f r om the w a i ve rof

appe l l a t e r i ght s . T he de f e nda ntunde r s t a nds th a t, a lth o u g h th e d e f

e n d a n t w ill b e s e n te n c e d in c o n f o r m ity w ith th e S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s , b y th is a gr e e m e ntthe de f

e nda ntw a i ve s the r i ghtt o appe a l the6 se nt ence on the basi s thatthe se nt ence i s the re sul tof an i n co rrectap p l i cat i o n o f th e S en t en ci n g G u i d el i n es. T he general w ai ver l angu age— “ al l ri gh t s c on fe rr ed by T i t l e 18, U ni t ed S t at es C ode , S e c t i on 3742 t o appe a l a ny s e nt e nc e i m pos e d, i nc l udi ng a ny r e s t i tut i on o r d e r , o rto ap p e a l th e m a n n e rin w h ic h th e s e n te n c e w a s im p o s e d ”

— c e r ta in ly is b r o a d e n o u g h t o c o v e ra n y i s s u e s a r i s i n g f r o m A p p r e n d i v . N e w J e r s e y , 5 3 0 U . S. 466, 120 S . C t . 2348 ( 2000) , a nd i t s pr oge ny , up t o a nd i nc l udi ng B ooke r . R ubbo has notcont ended t o the contra ry . H erpo i nti s thatthere i s a n except i on t o that br oa d w a i ve r . W e ha ve e m pha s i z e d i n the bl oc k quot e the l a ngua ge s e tt i ng out thatexce pt i on , w hi ch i s the l i nchp i n t o R ub bo ’ s c on t ent i on thather app ea l w ai ver d o e s n o t ap p ly . R ubbo’ s pos i t i on i s notout l a ndi s h. T he pl e a a gr e e m e ntl a ngua ge pe r m i tt i ng he rt o e s c ape the w a i ve ri f “ the s e nt e nc e e xc e e ds the m a xi m um pe r m i tt e d by st atut e” i s s em ant i ca l l y s i m i l art o t he “ st atut ory m axi m um ” t erm thatw as a key c o m p o n e n t o f

th e S u p r e m e C o u r t’s r e a s o n in g a n d a n a ly s is in B la k e ly . I n its o p in io n in th a t c a s e , th e C o u r t g a v e th is d e f in itio n o f th a t te r m : “O u rp r e c e d e n ts m a ke c l e a r , how e ve r , tha tthe ‘ s t a tut or y m a xi m um ’ f orA ppr e ndi purpos e s i s the m a x im u m s e n te n c e a ju d g e m a y im p o s e s o le ly o n th e b a s is o f th e f a c ts r e f le c te d in the j ur y ve r di c tora dm i tt e d by the de f e nda nt . ” B l a ke l y , 124 S . C t . a t2537 ( e m pha s i s om i tt e d) . T w o da y s be f or e w e he a r d or a l a r gum e nti n thi s c a s e , the7

S u p r e m e C o u r t r e le a s e d its B o o k e rd e c is io n , a n d th e B la k e ly is s u e d is c u s s e d in R u b b o ’s o p p o s itio n to th e m o tio n to d is m is s th is ap p e a l b e c a m e a B o o k e ris s u e . T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t in B o o k e rq u o te d th e “s ta tu to r y m a x im u m ” d e f in itio n f r o m its B l a ke l y opi ni on. S e e B ooke r , 2005 W L 50108, a t*7. B ec ause the se nt ence the di stri ctcourti m po se d o n R ub bo go es beyond that pe r m i tt e d on the ba s i s of the f a c t s s he a dm i tt e d dur i ng he rpl e a c ol l oquy , R ubbo c o n te n d s th a t it e x c e e d s th e s ta tu to r y m a x im u m s e n te n c e f o rB o o k e rp u rp o s e s . G i ven t hat , she s ay s thather s ent ence “ exce eds the m axi m um perm i tt ed by st atut e” f o rp u rp o s e s o f

th e e x c e p tio n to th e ap p e a l w a iv e rc o n ta in e d in h e rp le a a g r e e m e n t. T he prob l em w i th R ub bo ’ s c on t ent i on i s i t s i nv i si bl e pre m i se , w hi ch i s that

“ s t a tut or y m a xi m um ” f

orB ooke rpurpos e s i s the s a m e thi ng a s “ the m a xi m um pe r m i tt e d by s t a tut e ” f

orpurpos e s of

R ubbo’ s appe a l w a i ve r . T he tw o a r e notthe sa m e. T he cont exti n w hi ch the t erm s a re used and t he m ea ni ng they c on vey a re di f f e r e nt . A f

t e ra l l , “ [ a ] w or d i s nota c r y s t a l , tr a ns pa r e nta nd unc ha nge d, i ti s the s ki n of a l i vi ng thoughta nd m a y va r y gr e a t l y i n c ol ora nd c ont e nta c c or di ng t o the c i r c um s t a nc e s a nd the t i m e i n w hi c h i ti s us e d. ” T ow ne v. E i s ne r , 245 U . S . 418, 42 5, 38 S . C t . 15 8, 15 9 (19 18 ) ( H ol m es , J. ). In the A pp re nd i / B oo ker l i ne of deci si on s, the S up re m e C ou rtused the t erm

“ st atu t o ry m ax i m u m ” t o d escri b e th e p aram et ers o f th e ru l e an n o u n ced i n th o se8

deci si on s, a rul e thathad n othi ng t o d o w i th the sc op e of app ea l w ai vers . B oo ker, 2005 W L 50108, a t*7; B l a ke l y , 124 S . C t . a t2536–37; A ppr e ndi , 530 U . S . a t487 n. 13 & 490, 120 S . C t . a t2361 n. 13 & 2362–63. T he t e r m w a s de f i ne d i n a s p e c ia liz e d , w h ic h is to s a y a n o n - n a tu r a l, s e n s e . I t w a s d e f in e d th a t w a y n o t o n ly f ors e m a nt i c c onve ni e nc e buta l s o i n or de rt o j us t i f y a nd e xpl a i n the hol di ngs the C ou rtent er ed i n tho se deci si on s. E very on e kno w s thata j ud ge m ustno ti m po se a se nt ence i n exces s of the m axi m um thati s s t atut ori l y s peci fi ed for the cr i m e. S ee , e.g ., B u sh er t, 9 9 7 F .2 d at 1 3 5 0 n .1 8 (d es cr ib in g as “ax io m atic” th e r u le th at “a courtof the U ni t ed S t at es m ay no ti m po se a penal ty f or a c ri m e bey on d thatw hi ch i s au th o ri zed b y st atu t e”). B y l ab el i n g a sen t en ce th atth e j u d g e m ay n o ti m p o se u n d e rth e A p p r e n d i/B o o k e rd o c tr in e a s o n e in e x c e s s o f th e “s ta tu to r y m a x im u m ,” th e C o u r t m a y h a v e s o u g h t to c a ll in to p la y th a t w e ll- k n o w n p r in c ip le o f la w . W he the ri tdi d, how e ve r , i s notthe poi ntf orpr e s e ntpurpos e s . T he poi nt h e r e is th a t th e d e f

in itio n o f “s ta tu to r y m a x im u m ” th e S u p r e m e C o u r t u s e d to de s c r i be a nd e xpl a i n i t s hol di ngs i n thos e c a s e s s a y s nothi ng a boutw ha tR ubbo a nd the gove r nm e ntm e a ntw he n the y us e d the t e r m “ the m a xi m um pe r m i tt e d by s t a tut e ” i n the appe a l w a i ve r . T hi s i s nota m a tt e rof l e ga l r e s e a r c h. I ti s a que s t i on o f th e p a r tie s ’ in te n t.9

P l e a ba r ga i ns , w e ha ve r e c ogni z e d, a r e l i ke c ontr a c t s a nd s houl d be i nt e rpr e t e d i n a c c or d w i th w ha tthe pa r t i e s i nt e nde d. S e e H ow l e , 166 F . 3d a t1168 ( “ A pl e a a gr e e m e nti s , i n e s s e nc e , a c ontr a c tbe tw e e n the G ove r nm e nta nd a cr im in al d ef

en d an t. ”) ; A ll en v . T h o m as , 1 6 1 F .3 d 6 6 7 , 6 7 1 (1 1 th C ir. 1 9 9 7 ) ( “[W ]e ha ve s a i d tha tthe c ons truc t i on of pl e a a gr e e m e nt s i s gove r ne d ge ne r a l l y by the p r in c ip le s o f

c o n tr a c t la w , a s w e h a v e a d ap te d it f o rp u rp o s e s o f

c r im in a l la w . . .

. ” ) ( i nt e r na l m a r ks a nd c i t a t i on om i tt e d) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. K ni ght , 867 F . 2d 1285, 12 88 (11t h C i r. 19 89 ) ( “ W hen [the defendant ] ac ce pt ed the pl eaoffe r, her di s c us s i ons w i th [ a D E A a ge nt ] w e r e no l onge rw i th a vi e w t o a n a gr e e m e nt ; the n e g o tia tio n s h a d e n d e d a n d a p le a c o n tr a c t w a s f o r m e d .” ) . T h e r e is n o th in g to i ndi c a t e tha tw he n the s e pa r t i e s us e d the l a ngua ge “ e xc e e ds the m a xi m um pe r m i tt e d by s t a tut e ” t o de s c r i be the s e nt e nc e f r om w hi c h R ubbo w oul d be p e r m itte d to ap p e a l th e y in te n d e d th o s e w o r d s to h a v e a n y th in g o th e rth a n th e ir us ua l a nd or di na r y m e a ni ng. T ha tm e a ni ng de s c r i be s the uppe rl i m i tof puni s hm e nttha tC ongr e s s ha s l e gi s l a t i ve l y s pe c i f i e d f orvi ol a t i on of

a s t a tut e ; f

or e x a m p le , f

iv e y e a r s f

o rv io la tio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § 3 7 1 . F o rp u rp o s e s o f

th e e x c e p tio n to th e ap p e a l w a iv e r , th e p a r tie s c h o s e to d e f in e th e m a x im u m s e n te n c e in te r m s o f w h a t is “p e r m itte d b y s ta tu te ,” n o t in t erm s of w hati s perm i tt ed by the A pp re nd i l i ne of deci si on s thatw as evol vi ng at10

the t i m e. W e a sked coun se l for R ub bo atoral ar gu m entw hether there w as anythi ng i n the re cord t o i nd i ca t e thatthe part i es i nt ended t o res erve a r i gh tfor her t o app ea l any A pp re nd i -type i ss ues. H e r epl i ed w i th com m endabl e c ando r that there w as no t , and t hati f thathad b ee n the i nt entR ub bo w ou l d h ave r ai se d an A p p r e n d i is s u e a t th e s e n te n c e p r o c e e d in g , w h ic h s h e d id n o t. W e t ake our fi nal po i ntfr om the D . C . C i rc ui t ’ s dec i si on l as tm on th i n U ni t ed S t a t e s v. W e s t , 392 F . 3d 450 ( D . C . C i r . 2004) , w hi c h a ddr e s s e d the que s t i on of w hether a n except i on t o a w ai ver a l l ow i ng a def endantt o app ea l i f “ the C ou rt s e n t e n c e s [ h i m] t o a p e r i o d o f i mp r i s o n me n tl o n g e rth a n th e s t a tu t o r y ma x i mu m” p erm i tt ed an ap p eal o n A p p ren d i / B l ak el y g ro u n d s. T h e d efen d an ti n th atcase al so r e lie d u p o n th e d e f

in itio n o f “s ta tu to r y m a x im u m ” c o n ta in e d in th e B la k e ly opi ni on, butthe C our tr e j e c t e d a s i m pl a us i bl e the i de a tha tthe pa r t i e s c oul d ha ve in te n d e d th a t m e a n in g . I d . T h e C o u r t a d d e d th a t g iv in g s u c h a n in te rp r e ta tio n to the t e r m “ s t a tut or y m a xi m um ” w oul d a l s o be i nc ons i s t e ntw i th othe rpr ovi s i ons of the pl e a a gr e e m e nt , the r e by vi ol a t i ng a c a r di na l pr i nc i pl e of c ontr a c ti nt e rpr e t a t i on tha ta w r i t i ng i s t o be i nt e rpr e t e d a s a w hol e . I d. ( c i t i ng R e s t a t e m e nt( S e c ond) of C ontr a c t s § 202( 2) ( 1981) ) . I tw oul d be i nc ons i s t e nt , be c a us e othe rpr ovi s i ons of th e p le a a g r e e m e n t s e t o u t th e s ta tu to r y m a x im u m p u n is h m e n ts th e d e f e n d a n t c o u ld11

r e c e i ve f orthe tw o c ha r ge s a nd, of c our s e , the y di d s o i n t e r m s of the puni s hm e nt p e r m itte d u n d e rth e te r m s o f th e s ta tu te s th e m s e lv e s . I d . T he s a m e i s true i n the pr e s e ntc a s e . A pr ovi s i on i n the pl e a a gr e e m e nt st at es thatR ub bo un ders t ands and ackno w l edges that“ the C ou rtm ay i m po se a st atu t o ry m ax i m u m t erm o f i m p ri so n m en to f u p t o fi v e (5 ) years, fo l l o w ed b y a te r m o f s u p e r v is e d r e le a s e o f

u p to th r e e ( 3 ) y e a r s , a n d a f in e o f u p to $ 2 5 0 ,0 0 0 ,” a n d o r d e rth e d e f

e n d a n tt o p a y r e s t i tu t i o n . I n th a tp r o v i s i o n , “ s t a tu t o r y ma x i mu m” un qu es t i on abl y m ea ns the m axi m um perm i tt ed by the st atut e i t se l f, un di m i ni shed by a ny A ppr e ndi / B ooke rc ons i de r a t i ons . I f w e w e r e t o r e a d the l a ngua ge i n the ap p e a l w a iv e rp r o v is io n in th is s a m e a g r e e m e n t to m e a n a n y th in g e ls e , w e w o u ld b e in te rp r e tin g m a te r ia lly id e n tic a l te r m s in th e s a m e c o n tr a c t to m e a n s u b s ta n tia lly d if f e r e n t th in g s . T h a t w e w ill n o t d o . In sum m ary, the ri gh tt o app ea l a s ent ence base d o n A pp re nd i / B oo ker g ro u n d s can b e w ai v ed i n a p l ea ag reem en t . B ro ad w ai v er l an g u ag e co v ers th o se grou nd s of app ea l . A bsentsom e i nd i ca t i on thatthe part i es i nt ended o therw i se , w h e n a n e x c e p tio n to a n ap p e a l w a iv e ris s ta te d in te r m s o f a s e n te n c e im p o s e d in e xc e s s of the s t a tut or y m a xi m um , thos e t e r m s s houl d be gi ve n the i ror di na r y a nd na tur a l m e a ni ng. O r di na r i l y a nd na tur a l l y , “ s t a tut or y m a xi m um ” a nd “ the m axi m um perm i tt ed by st atut e” re fe r t o the l on gestse nt ence thatthe st atut e w hi ch12

pu ni shes a c ri m e perm i t s acourtt o i m po se , re gardl es s of w hether the ac tual s e nt e nc e m us tbe s hor t e ne d i n a pa r t i c ul a rc a s e be c a us e of the pr i nc i pl e s i nvol ve d in th e A p p r e n d i/B o o k e rlin e o f d e c is io n s . T he go vernm ent ’ s m ot i on t o d i sm i ss thi s app ea l on the basi s of the appeal wa i v e ri s g r a n t e d . AP P E AL DI S MI S S E D.