FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT SEPT 8, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T 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. 08- 10918 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 6 - 0 0 3 4 5 - C R - T - 1 7 - T GW 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 N A R C I S O C A N D E L O , 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 M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( S e p t e m b e r 8, 2008) B efo re T JO F L A T , M A R C U S an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: A M id d le D is tr ic t o f

F lo r id ag r a n d ju ry in d ic te d ap p e lla n t a n d th r e e o th e r s in2

C ountO ne of

pos s e s s i ng w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e f i ve ki l ogr a m s orm or e of c oc a i ne w hi l e aboa r d ave s s e l s ubj e c tt o the j ur i s di c t i on of the U ni t e d S t a t e s , i n vi ol a t i on of 4 6 U. S . C . Ap p . § 1 9 0 3 ( a ) a n d ( g ) , 2 1 U. S . C . § 9 6 0 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( B ) ( i i ) , a n d , i n C o u n tT wo w i th c ons pi r i ng t o pos s e s s w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e f i ve ki l ogr a m s orm or e of c o c a in e w h ile ab o a r d a v e s s e l s u b je c t to th e ju r is d ic tio n o f th e U n ite d S ta te s , in v io la tio n o f

4 6 U .S .C . A p p . § 1 9 0 3 ( a ) , ( g ) , a n d ( j) , a n d 2 1 U .S .C . § 96 0(b)(1)(B)(i i ). T he i nd i ctm enti ncl ud ed a f orfe i ture provi si on thatprov i ded appel l antw i th n ot i ce thatthe U ni t ed S t at es i nt ended t o forfe i tany property der i ved f r om orus e d t o f

a c i l i t a t e the c om m i s s i on of the c ha r ge d of

f e ns e s , a s pr e s c r i be d by 4 6 U .S .C . A p p . § 1 9 0 4 , 2 1 U .S .C . § § 8 5 3 ( p ) a n d 8 8 1 ( a ) , a n d 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 4 6 1 ( c ) . P ur s ua ntt o aw r i tt e n pl e aa gr e e m e nt , appe l l a ntpl e d gui l ty t o the C ountO ne of f e ns e , a nd on M a r c h 5, 2007, the di s tr i c tc our ts e nt e nc e d hi m t o apr i s on t e rm of 13 5 m on ths. A pp el l antdi d n otappeal hi s c on vi ct i on or se nt ence . O n F e b ru a ry 4 , 2 0 0 8 , ap p e lla n t m o v e d th e d is tr ic t c o u r t to v a c a te h is conv i ct i on and sent ence pu rs uantt o 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 25 5, cl ai m i ng , am on g o ther thi ngs , tha thi s a tt orne y ha d be e n i ne f f e c t i ve by f

a i l i ng t o f

i l e a n appe a l . T he di stri ctcourtgrant ed the m ot i on and, pu rs uantt o thi s c ou rt ’ s dec i si on i n U ni t ed S t at es v. P hi l l i ps, 22 5 F . 3d 11 98 , 12 01 (11th C i r. 20 00 ), vaca t ed the form er j ud gm ent , i m po se d the sa m e s ent ence , and ent er ed a new j ud gm ent . T hi s app ea l3

f o llo w e d . A p p el l an targ u es th ath i s g u i l ty p l ea w as n o tk n o w i n g an d v o l u n t ary b ecau se th e m ag i strat e j u d g e d i d n o tad v i se h i m o f th e p o ssi b i l i ty o f fo rfei tu re an d , th u s, fai l ed t o co m p l y w i th R u l e 1 1 o f th e F ed eral R u l es o f C ri m i n al P ro ced u re. H e al so chal l enges the di stri ctcourt ’ s j ud gm entof forf ei ture a nd the court ’ s deni al of a m itig a tin g - r o le r e d u c tio n o f h is b a s e o f

f e n s e le v e l in d e te rm in in g th e ap p lic ab le G u id e lin e s s e n te n c e r a n g e . T h e G o v e rn m e n t c o u n te r s w ith th e a r g u m e n t th a t, in e n te r in g th e p le aa g r e e m e n t, ap p e lla n t w a iv e d h is r ig h t to ap p e a l h is s e n te n c e . A s athr e s hol d m a tt e r , w e c onc l ude tha tappe l l a ntha s w a i ve d hi s c ha l l e nge t o the pl e apr oc e e di ng be f or e the m a gi s tr a t e j udge be c a us e he f a i l e d t o obj e c tt o the r e por ta nd r e c om m e nda t i on the j udge s ubm i tt e d t o the di s tr i c tc our t . R ul e 59 of the F e de r a l R ul e s of

C r i m i na l P r oc e dur e gove rns m a tt e r s be f or e a m a gi s tr a t e j udge an d p ro v i d es: W i thi n 1 0 d ay s a ft erbei ng se rved w i th a copy of the re com m ended di s pos i t i on, ora ts om e othe rt i m e the c our ts e t s , a pa r ty m a y s e rve a nd f i l e s pe c i f i c w r i tt e n obj e c t i ons t o the pr opos e d f i ndi ngs a nd r e c o m m e n d a tio n s . . . . F a ilu r e to o b je c t in a c c o r d a n c e w ith th is ru le wa i v e s a p a r ty ’ s r i g h tt o r e v i e w. F e d. R . C r i m . P . 59( b) ( 2) . T he w a i ve rpr ovi s i on w a s a dopt e d i n 2005, a nd the a dvi s ory c om m i tt e e e xpl a i ne d tha tthe pr ovi s i on “ i s i nt e nde d t o e s t abl i s h the re qu i re m ent s f

or obj ec t i ng i n a di stri ctcourti n o rdert o p re se rve app el l at e r evi ew4

of m agi stra t e j ud ges’ deci si on s. ” F ed. R . C ri m . P . 59 advi sorycom m i tt ee ’ s not es ( 2 0 0 5 ) . W e r e c e nt l y e xpl a i ne d the di f f e r e nc e be tw e e n w a i ve rof a c l a i m a nd forf ei ture of acl ai m i n U ni t ed S t at es v. L ew i s, 49 2 F . 3d 12 19 (11th C i r. 20 07 ) ( en ba nc ) . “ [ W ] a i ve ri s the i nt e nt i ona l r e l i nqui s hm e ntof a know n r i ght , w he r e a s the s i m pl e f a i l ur e t o a s s e r ta r i ght , w i thouta ny a f f i rm a t i ve s t e ps t o vol unt a r i l y w a i ve th e c la im , is a f

o r f e itu r e to b e r e v ie w e d u n d e rth e p la in e rr o rs ta n d a r d e m b o d ie d in [F ed. R . C ri m . P . ] 52 (b). ” I d. at12 22 . W e a ff i rm a di stri ctcourt ’ s rul i ng w here the appel l anthas w ai ved h i s r i gh tt o chal l enge the rul i ng on appeal . U ni t ed S t at es v. R od ri gu ez -V el as qu ez , 13 2 F . 3d 69 8, 69 8 (11 th C i r. 19 98 ). B e c a us e appe l l a ntw a i ve d hi s c ha l l e nge t o the pl e apr oc e e di ng be f or e the m a gi s tr a t e j udge , w e do notr e vi e w hi s c l a i m tha thi s pl e aw a s notknow i ng a nd vol unt a ry . A c c or di ngl y , w e a f f i rm hi s c onvi c t i on. A ppe l l a nta r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tf a i l e d t o c om pl y w i th R ul e 32. 2 of the F e de r a l R ul e s of

C r i m i na l P r oc e dur e be f or e or de r i ng f

or f e i tur e , a nd e rr one ous l y de ni e d hi m a m i t i ga t i ng- r ol e r e duc t i on of hi s ba s e of

f e ns e l e ve l . T he G ov ernm entre spon ds thatappel l ant ’ s w ai ver of hi s r i gh tt o app ea l hi s s ent ence w a s m a de know i ngl y a nd vol unt a r i l y a nd tha t , thus , w e a r e pr e c l ude d f r om r e v ie w in g h is s e n te n c e .5

W e r e vi e w the know i ng a nd vol unt a ry na tur e of a s e nt e nc e appe a l w a i ve rde no vo . U ni t ed S t at es v. B ushert , 99 7 F . 2d 13 43 , 13 52 (11th C i r. 19 93 ). A se nt ence ap p e a l w a iv e rc o n ta in e d in a p le aa g r e e m e n t, m a d e k n o w in g ly a n d v o lu n ta r ily , is e nf or c e abl e . I d. a t1350. T o e nf or c e the s e nt e nc e appe a l w a i ve r , the G ove rnm e nt m us tde m ons tr a t e e i the rtha t( 1) the di s tr i c tc our ts pe c i f i c a l l y que s t i one d the defe nd antabou tthe w ai ver duri ng the change of ple a c ol l oq uy, or (2) the re cord c l e a r l y s how s tha tthe de f e nda ntothe rw i s e unde r s t ood the f ul l s i gni f i c a nc e of the w a i ve r . I d. a t1351. “ A w a i ve rof the r i ghtt o appe a l i nc l ude s a w a i ve rof the r i ght t o appe a l di f

f i c ul torde ba t abl e l e ga l i s s ue s –i nde e d, i ti nc l ude s a w a i ve rof the r i ght t 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 (11th C i r. 1 9 9 9 ) .F o r f

e itu r e p r o c e d u r e s a r e g o v e rn e d b y R u le 3 2 .2 . “[ C ]r im in a l f o r f e itu r e is p a r t o f ad e f e n d a n t’s s e n te n c e .” U n ite d S ta te s v . G ilb e r t, 2 4 4 F .3 d 8 8 8 , 9 2 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) ; s e e a ls o F e d . R . C r im . P . 3 2 .2 ( b ) ( 3 ) . T h e r e f o r e , af o r f e itu r e e rr o ris appe a l abl e onl y i n the c ont e xtof as e nt e nc e appe a l . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. P e a s , 331 F . 3d 809, 817 ( 11th C i r . 2003) ( hol di ng tha tthe gove rnm e nt ’ s c ha l l e nge t o a j udgm e nt ’ s l a c k of

a f or f e i tur e or de rw a s notbe f or e the C our tbe c a us e the g o v e rn m e n t d id n o t ap p e a l th e d e f e n d a n t’s s e n te n c e ) . A ppe l l a nt ’ s s e nt e nc e appe a l w a i ve rw a s know i ng a nd vol unt a ry , a nd none of6

the l i m i t ed except i on s t o the appeal w ai ver app l i es . A cc ordi ng l y, w e a ff i rm appel l ant ’ s s ent ence vi a the di sm i ss al of hi s s ent ence appeal . In sum , w e a ff i rm ap p e lla n t’s c o n v ic tio n a n d d is m is s th e s e n te n c e ap p e a l. A F F I R M E D , in p a r t; D I S M I S S E D , in p a r t.