FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT FEB RUARY 20, 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. 06- 16596 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 01 -005 34 -C R -T W T -1 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 R T U R O P L I E G O - D U A R T E , 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 o rth e N o r th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( F e b r u ar y 20, 2008) B efo re T JO F L A T , B L A C K an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: A rturo P l i ego-D uart e app ea l s f rom hi s c on vi ct i on and 3 60 -m on th sent ence im p o s e d a f

te rh e p le d g u ilty to o n e c o u n t o f c o n s p ir in g to p o s s e s s w ith in te n t to2

d is tr ib u te a t le a s t 5 k ilo g r a m s o f c o c a in e a n d 5 0 0 g r a m s o f m e th a m p h e ta m in e , in vi ol at i on of 21 U . S . C . §§ 84 1(b)(1)(A )( i i ), (b)( 1)(A )( vi i i ), 84 6 and 85 1. A ft er r e v i e w , w e a f

f i r m. I . B AC KG RO UN D A . Pl e a A g r e e m e nt P lie g o - D u a r te , a lo n g w ith s e v e r a l c o c o n s p ir a to r s , w a s c h a r g e d in a m u ltic ounti ndi c tm e nt . I n A pr i l 2002, P l i e go- D ua r t e pl e d gui l ty pur s ua ntt o a nego t i at ed pl eaagre em ent . T he pl eaagre em entcont ai ned t he fol l ow i ng appeal w ai ver: L I M I T E D W A I V E R O F A P P E A L : T o the m a xi m um e xt e nt p e r m itte d b y f

e d e r a l la w , th e d e f

e n d a n t v o lu n ta r ily a n d e x p r e s s ly w a iv e s th e r ig h t to ap p e a l h is s e n te n c e a n d th e r ig h t to c o lla te r a lly a tt a c k hi s s e nt e nc e i n a ny pos t - c onvi c t i on pr oc e e di ng on a ny gr ound, exce ptthatthe defendantm ay fi l e adi re ctappeal of an up w ar d d e p a r tu r e f

r o m th e o th e rw is e ap p lic a b le s e n te n c in g g u id e lin e r a n g e . T he de f e nda ntunde r s t a nds tha tthi s P l e a A gr e e m e ntdoe s notl i m i tthe G ove rnm e nt ’ s r i ghtt o appe a l , buti f the G ove rnm e ntappe a l s the s e nt e nc e i m pos e d, the de f e nda ntm a y a l s o f

i l e a di r e c tappe a l of se nt ence . D ur i ng the pl e a he a r i ng, a m ong othe rthi ngs , the di s tr i c tc our ta s ke d P l i e goD ua r t e w he the rhe unde r s t ood tha t“ unde rs om e c i r c um s t a nc e s , ” P l i e go- D ua r t e or the gove rnm e ntm a y “ ha ve the r i ghtt o appe a l a ny s e nt e nc e ” i m pos e d. P l i e goD ua r t e r e s ponde d tha the unde r s t ood. T he di s tr i c tc our tf ur the ra s ke d P l i e goD ua r t e w he the rhe unde r s t ood tha ta s pa r tof hi s pl e a a gr e e m e nt , he w a s gi vi ng up3

hi s r i ghtt o appe a l hi s s e nt e nc e “ unl e s s the r e i s a n upw a r d de pa r tur e f r om the gui de l i ne s ora n appe a l by the gove rnm e nt . ” P l i e go- D ua rt e r e s ponde d tha the unde r s t ood. T he di s tr i c tc our tul t i m a t e l y c onc l ude d tha tP l i e go- D ua r t e unde r s t ood the c ha r ge s a ga i ns thi m a nd the c ons e que nc e s of hi s gui l ty pl e a a nd tha tP l i e goD uart e had kn ow i ng l y, vo l un t ar i l y a nd com pet ent l y e nt er ed hi s gui l ty pl ea . A tse nt enci ng i n Jun e 200 2, the di stri ctcourtca l cul at ed a bas e off ense l evel of 38 base d o n d rug q uant i ty a nd i m po se d a tw o-l evel fi re arm enhancem ent , a f ou rl e ve l l e a de r s hi p r ol e e nha nc e m e nta nd a tw o- l e ve l r e duc t i on f ora c c e pt a nc e of r e s pons i bi l i ty , f

ora t ot a l of

f e ns e l e ve l of

42. W i th a c r i m i na l hi s t or y c a t e gory of I I , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t f

o u n d a g u id e lin e s r a n g e o f 3 6 0 m o n th s ’ to lif

e im p r is o n m e n t. B ec ause the se nt enci ng occurre d p ri or t o the S up re m e C ou rt ’ s dec i si on i n U ni t ed S t a t e s v. B ooke r , 543 U . S . 220, 125 S . C t . 738 ( 2005) , the di s tr i c tc our tappl i e d the s e n te n c in g g u id e lin e s a s m a n d a to ry a n d im p o s e d a 3 6 0 - m o n th s e n te n c e . D e s p ite P lie g o - D u a r te ’s r e q u e s t, d e f e n s e c o u n s e l d id n o t f

ile a n ap p e a l. B. Se c t i o n 2 2 5 5 M o t i o n In 20 03 , P l i ego-D uart e f i l ed a pro se 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 5 m ot i on , ar gu i ng , i nt er al i a, thathi s def

ense coun se l w as const i tut i on al l y i neff ec t i ve for f

ai l i ng t o fi l e a di re ctappeal as i nstruct ed. A ft eran evi dent i ary hea ri ng , the di stri ctcourtdeni ed P li eg o -D u ar te’s § 2 2 5 5 m o ti o n in A u g u st 2 0 0 5 . W ith re sp ec t t o P li eg o -D u ar te’s4

i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e c l a i m , the di s tr i c tc our tc onc l ude d tha tbe c a us e P l i e goD u a r te ’s p le a a g r e e m e n t c o n ta in e d a s e n te n c e ap p e a l w a iv e r , P lie g o - D u a r te s u f f e r e d n o p r e

ju d ic e f r o m c o u n s e l’s f

a ilu r e to f

ile a n ap p e a l. O n appe a l , thi s C our tgr a nt e d a c e r t i f i c a t e of appe a l a bi l i ty on the s ol e i s s ue of “ [ w ] he the rthe di s tr i c tc our tpr ope r l y de ni e d appe l l a nt ’ s c l a i m f ori ne f f e c t i ve as si st ance of coun se l base d o n cou nsel ’ s f ai l ure t o fi l e adi re ctappeal ? ” T he C ou rt c o n c lu d e d th a t, b e c a u s e P lie g o - D u a r te h a d w a iv e d m o s t, b u t n o t a ll, o f h is ap p e lla te r ig h ts , p r e

ju d ic e w a s p r e s u m e d , a n d P lie g o - D u a r te w a s e n title d to a n o u tof - t i m e di r e c tappe a l . T he C our tva c a t e d the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s § 2255 or de ra nd r e m a nde d f

orf ur the rpr oc e e di ngs c ons i s t e ntw i th i t s opi ni on. S e e P l i e go- D ua r t e v. U ni t ed S t at es , 19 9 F . A pp ’ x 8 55 (11t h C i r. 20 06 ). O n r e m a nd, the di s tr i c tc our tva c a t e d i t s or i gi na l or de rof j udgm e ntof conv i ct i on and 3 60 -m on th sent ence and reent er ed i tw i th a new do cketentry p u r s u a n t to U n ite d S ta te s v . P h illip s , 2 2 5 F .3 d 1 1 9 8 , 1 2 0 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) . P l i e go- D ua r t e the n t i m e l y f i l e d thi s now di r e c tappe a l of hi s c onvi c t i on a nd se nt ence . I I . DI S CUS S I ON A . V al i d i ty of G u i l ty P l ea P l i e go- D ua r t e a r gue s tha thi s gui l ty pl e a w a s i nva l i d be c a us e he di d notBe causePliego- Duar te did not object to the plea procee dings in the district c ourt, our 1 review is limi ted to plain error in order to avoid manifest injustice. See United States v. Quinones, 97 F .3d 473, 475 (11th Cir. 1996). The f actual statement of Plieg o-Dua rte’s a ppeal brie f m e nti on s b ri e fly

that hi s c ouns e l w a s in e ff e c tiv ein n e g oti atinghisple a , b ut P lie g o- Du art e fails to develop this argument. In any event, to the e x tent Pliego- Duar te attempts to raise a

n ine ff e c tiv ea ssi sta

nc ec laim, wede c lin eto add re ss it on dire c t a pp e al. M a ssa

rov. Unite d St ate s, 538 U.S. 500, 504-05, 123 S. Ct. 1690, 1694 (2003). 5 w a i ve hi s S i xth A m e ndm e ntr i ghtt o ha ve the f a c t s s uppor t i ng hi s f

i r e a r m a nd le a d e r s h ip - r o le s e n te n c in g e n h a n c e m e n ts f o u n d b y a ju ry b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b le d o u b t. T h is is e s s e n tia lly a B o o k e ra r g u m e n t.

1 B ooke r , how e ve r , di d notr e nde rP l i e go- D ua r t e ’ s gui l ty pl e a i nvol unt a ry a nd p r o v i d e s n o b a s i s f

o rv a c a t i n g h i s c o n v i c t i o n . Se e Br a d y v . U n i t e d St a t e s , 3 9 7 U . S. 742, 756- 57, 90 S . C t . 1463, 1473- 74 ( 1970) ( c onc l udi ng tha ta gui l ty pl e a i s not r e nde r e d i nvol unt a ry by a s ubs e que ntc ha nge i n the l a w a s i tr e l a t e s t o the de f e nda nt ’ s s e nt e nc e ) . A B ooke re rr ori m pl i c a t e s s e nt e nc i ng r i ght s , notthe e s tab lis h m e n t o f

g u ilt o rc o m p lia n c e w ith F e d e r a l R u le o f C r im in a l P r o c e d u r e 1 1 . W h en a r ev er sib le B o o k erer ro r is e stab li sh ed , th is C o u rt v ac ates th e d ef en d an t’ s s e n te n c e a n d r e m a n d s f

o rr e s e n te n c in g in a c c o r d a n c e w ith th e ap p lic a b le la w . W e do no tre m and t o p erm i tthe defendantt o w i thd ra w hi s gui l ty pl ea . T he di stri ct courtdi d n otcom m i tpl ai n err or w hen i tconcl ud ed thatP l i ego-D uart e’ s gui l ty pl ea w as k n o w i n g an d v o l u n t ary. B . S en te n ci n g A p p eal W ai ver In th i s d i rectap p eal , P l i eg o -D u art e rai ses sev eral sen t en ci n g i ssu es,Pliego- Duar te’s sentence a

ppeal waiver permits him t o appeal only if thereis an upward 2 depar ture under the guidelines or if the g overnment appeals the sentence . Pliego- Duar te’s appellateclaims do not fall under either of these e x ceptions to the sentenc e appe al waiver. We reviewthe voluntariness of a n appeal waiver

de novo. United States v. B ushert, 997 3 F.2d 1343, 1352 ( 11th Cir. 1993). 6 i ncl ud i ng the di stri ctcourt ’ s r ef usal t o aw ar d P l i ego-D uart e a n add i t i on al ac ce pt ance -of- re spon si bi l i ty poi ntun der the gu i del i nes a nd fa i l ure t o res ent ence h im in ac co rd an ce w ith B o o k er . H o w ev er , i f e n fo rc ea b le, P li eg o -D u ar te’s se nt ence appeal w ai ver prec l ud es re vi ew of these cl ai m s. P l i ego-D uart e a rgues 2 th a t h is ap p e a l w a iv e ris in v a lid b e c a u s e th e d is tr ic t c o u r t f a ile d to a d e q u a te ly ex p l ai n h i s ap p eal ri g h t s o r th e ap p eal w ai v er d u ri n g h i s p l ea co l l o q u y. 3 A s e nt e nc e appe a l w a i ve rm us tbe know i ng a nd vol unt a ry a nd w i l l be e n f o r c e d if th e g o v e rn m e n t s h o w s e ith e rth a t: ( 1 ) th e d is tr ic t c o u r t s p e c if ic a lly que s t i one d the de f

e nda nta boutthe w a i ve r ; or( 2) the r e c or d m a ke s c l e a rtha tthe defe nd antotherw i se un ders t oo d the ful l si gn i fi ca nce of the w ai ver. U ni t ed S t at es v . B u s h e r t, 9 9 7 F .2 d , 1 3 4 3 , 1 3 5 0 - 5 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ) . A w a iv e ro f th e r ig h t to ap p e a l c a n c o v e r“d if

f ic u lt o rd e b a tab le le g a l is s u e s o re v e n b la ta n t e rr o r ,” i nc l udi ng B ooke ri s s ue s . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. G r i na r d- H e nry , 399 F . 3d 1294, 1296 (11t h C i r. 20 05 ). P l i e go- D ua r t e c l a i m s tha thi s c ouns e l dur i ng the pl e a ne got i a t i ons di d not e xpl a i n the appe a l w a i ve rt o hi m be f or e he s i gne d the pl e a a gr e e m e nt . P l i e go-Plie g o- Du art e ’sargument t hat hi s sentenc ea

pp e al w aiver i s unenf

orc e a blebe c a us eit i s 4 not supported by

adequate consideration is also without merit. In exchang e for Pliego- Duar

te’s guilty plea, the g overnment agree d to dismi ss the thirteen remaining c ounts in the indictment and t o re c o mm e n d

th atP l i e g o - D u art e ’ s o f

f e n s el e v e lb ere d

u c e d f o r a c c ep t an c eo f

re s p o n s ib i l i ty. 7 D ua r t e a l s o poi nt s outtha thi s s e nt e nc i ng c ouns e l t e s t i f i e d dur i ng the § 2255 he a r i ng tha t , a tthe s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng, P l i e go- D ua r t e appe a r e d nott o unde r s t a nd thathe had w ai ved h i s r i gh tt o app ea l hi s s ent ence . H ow ever , the di stri ctcourt s pe c i f i c a l l y que s t i one d P l i e go- D ua r t e a boutthe s e nt e nc e appe a l w a i ve rdur i ng the p le a c o llo q u y , a n d P lie g o - D u a r te s ta te d th a t h e u n d e r s to o d th e ap p e a l w a iv e r . W e appl y a s tr ong pr e s um pt i on tha tP l i e go- D ua r t e ’ s s t a t e m e ntunde roa th tha the unde r s t ood the s e nt e nc e appe a l w a i ve ri n hi s pl e a a gr e e m e ntw a s true , a nd P l i e goD uart e has fa i l ed t o m ee tthe heavy burden to show otherw i se . S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. M e dl oc k, 12 F . 3d 185, 187 ( 11th C i r . 1994) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R oge r s , 848 F . 2d 166, 168 ( 11th C i r . 1988) . M or e ove r , P l i e go- D ua r t e ’ s c l a i m tha the di d not qu es t i on the di stri ctcourtre gardi ng the appeal w ai ver outof fe arof a l i fe se nt ence o rd u e to a d v ic e o f

c o u n s e l is b e lie d b y th e f a c t th a t P lie g o - D u a r te d id n o t h e s ita te to o b je c t to th e g o v e rn m e n t’s f a c tu a l p r o f

f e rd u r in g th e p le a . B ec ause P l i ego-D uart e kno w i ng l y a nd vo l un t ar i l y e nt er ed i nt o h i s s ent ence ap p eal w ai v er, th e sen t en ce ap p eal w ai v er i s en fo rceab l e. T h u s, w e d o n o tad d ress 4 the se nt enci ng i ss ues r ai se d b y P l i ego-D uart e. AF F I RME D.