FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT J UNE 14 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 05- 1393 2 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 04-00215 -CR- T- E UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us BENNIE BASCOMB , JR., Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court f o r th e M i d d l e D i s t r i c to f

A l ab a ma

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J un e 14, 200 6 ) Be fo re CA RN E S, P RY O R and H IL L , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. CAR NE S, Circuit Judge: Be nni e Ba sc om

b, Jr . appe al s th e 120- m onth se nte nc e im pose d a ft er

he2

pl ead edgu il ty to v io la ti on s o f 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (a)( 1) an d 1 8 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A ). Bascom

b was sentenced in ac cordance w ith the m andatory mi n i mu ms s e to u tb y t h o s e s t a tu t e s . A s p a rto f h i s p l e aa g r e e me n t , B a s c o mb en te re d avol unt ar

y and know ing w ai ve r of

his r igh t t o a

ppe al , and the gr ound s of thi s a ppe al w er e inc lud ed

in that w ai ve r. O n th e ba sis of that w ai ve r, w e gr an t the go ve rn m en t’s m ot io n t o d is m is s B as co m b’s ap pe al . I. Bascom b’ s convictio n resulted from his cultiv ation of m arij uana plants at hi s h om e an d h is po ss es si on of a .22 cal ib er p is to l at th e ti m e o f hi s arres t. Ba sc om b’ s w if e w as a lso c harg ed

w ithm anuf

ac tur ing ( the te rm

use d inthe statut e) m ar ij uana . T he gov er nm en t of fe re d to dr op a ll ch ar ge s a ga ins t hi s w if e if Ba sc om b w oul d pl ea d gu ilty , a dm it that he ha d be engr ow ing m or e than on e hund red m arij uana plants and th at he had possessed th e handgun , and agree to an appeal wa iver. Bascom

b agreed to do so. T hose vio lations trig gered m andatory fiv e-year sen te nc es th atm us t ru n c on se cu ti ve ly. See 2 1 U.S.C. § 84 1; 18 U.S.C. § 924. Bascom

b does no t dispu te the knowing and vo luntary nature of his appeal w ai ve r, and the tr an sc ri pt o f his c hange of ple a pr oc ee din gs s how s th at the m ag istrate j udge spe ci fi ca lly que sti one d hi m

about the w ai ve r, r ec ei vin g3

as sur an ce s th at

Ba sc om b un de rs too d w ha t he w as doi ng; de fe nse c ouns el a lso ac know le dge d th e w ai ve r. A t the se nte nc ing pr oc ee din gs, the dis tr ic t c ourt ind ic at ed that B as co m

b w oul d have r ec ei ve d asho rt er se nte nc e but

f or the m an d at o ry m i n i m

u m s re qu i re db y s t at u t e. Th e c o u rt re je ct ed Ba s co m

b ’s contentio n that the sentence was c ruel and unusu al but agreed that it wa s unr ea sona

ble and e nc our ag ed

Ba sc om b to appe al it . T he c ourt di d so notw ith standi ng the f

ac t tha t the iss ue w as squ ar el y c ove re d by

the te rm s of

the ap pe al w ai ve r, w hic h e xpr es sly r ule d ou t an a

ppe al on any

gr ound e xc ep t ine ff ec tiv e as sis tanc e of

c ouns el and p ro se cu tor ia l m isc ondu ct . Ba sc om b c ont en ds tha t the se nte nc e vio la te s th e E igh th A m en dm en t be ca use it is cr ue l and unusu al . T he gov er nm en t c ont en ds tha t hi s a ppe al sho uld be di sm is se d b as edon Bas co m b’s ag reem en t t o wai ve hi s ri gh t t o app eal . Ba sc om b arg ue s th at

be ca use the gov er

nm en t di d no t ob

j ec t a t se nte nc ing to his state d in te nti on t o a

ppe al , or to the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s e nc our ag em en t of the appe al , it ha s a cquie sc ed

to thi s a ppe al or w ai ve d th e w ai ve r. B as co m b a lso arg ue s th at

he shou ld not be bound to any agree m ent waiving his right to challenge an uncons titutio nal sentence. II. W e de ci de the e ff

ec tiv en es s of

the appe al w ai ve r nowbe ca use r equir ing the4

governm ent to file a brief wher e there has been a valid appeal wa iver underm ines the int er es ts o f both th e gove rn m en t and d ef en dants ge ne ra lly . T he r ea son: As w e explained in [United States v. ] Bushert, plea ag re em en ts c ont ai nin g su chw ai ve rs save the gov er nm en t tim e an d m one y

by c onve y ing an im

m ed ia te and t an gib le be ne fi t i n th e sa vin g of

pr ose cu tor ia l r es our ce s. 997 F. 2d at [1343 , 1347 (11th Cir. 1993)] Asentence appeal w ai ve r is a lso of

va lue to a de fe ndant, be ca use it is an oth er c hip the de fe ndant c anbr ing to the barg ai nin g ta ble and tra de f

or a ddi tio na l c onc es sio ns f

ro m the governm ent. S ee id. Requiring the gov ernm ent to file an appeal brief e ven thou gh there is an appeal w aiver subs tanti al ly

dim ini she s th e va lue of

the w ai ve r to the governm ent, and byextension to defendants who are w ill ing to barg ai n aw ay

the ir r igh t t o a ppe al the sentence. Ac cordingly , where it is clear fr om the plea agreem ent and the Rule 11 collo quy , or from som e other part of the r ec or d, that the de fe ndant k now ing ly and volu ntarily

entered into a sentence appeal w aiver, that w ai ve r shou ld b e en fo rc ed w ith out r equir ing the gove rn m en t t o br ie f the m er its of the appe al . Whe re the appeal is due to be dism issed, sooner is better than later. Uni te d S ta te s v . Buc ha na n, 1 31 F.3d 10 05 , 10 08 –0 9 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 7) . A n a ppe al w ai ve r is v al id i f a de fe ndant e nte rs int o it kno w ing ly

and vol unt ar ily . B ushe rt , 997 F . 2d at 13 50. W e ha ve c onsi ste ntl y e nf or ce d kn ow ing an d vo lun tary

appe al w ai ve rs a cc or din g to the ir te rm s. S ee U nit ed

S ta te s v. Br ow n, 415 F . 3d 1 257, 127 2 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) ; U nit ed S ta te s v. F ry e, 402 F . 3d 1123 , 112 9 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) ; W ill iam s v. U nit ed S ta te s, 396 F . 3d 1 340, 134 2 ( 11th5

Cir. 2005 ); U nited States v. Rubbo, 396 F.3d 1330, 1335 (11 th Cir. 2005 ); U nited States v. W eaver, 275 F.3d 1320 , 1333 (11th Cir. 2001); United States v. Pea se, 24 0 F .3d93 8, 9 42 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ); B uc ha na n, 1 31 F.3d at 1 00 9. United States v. How le, 166 F.3d 116 6 (11th Cir. 1999), involved a plea ag re em en t i n w hic h H ow le w ai ve d th e ri ght to ap pe al his se nte nc e an d th e ri ght to attack his convictio n in any post-conv iction proceeding . Id. at 1167 . Undeterr ed by tha t, Ho wle app eal edon a ba si s t ha t was no t co ve redby eith er o f th e two lim ite d e xc ep tio ns c ar

ve d ou t i n th e ap pe al w ai ve r. S ee id. a t 11 67 n . 2. S ee kin g to e sc ap e the ti ght

gr ip o f his w ai ve r, H ow le c ont en de d th at it w as inv al idate d by th e d is tri ctco ur t’s s ta te m en ts en co ur ag in g h im to pu rs ue an ap pe al . Id. at 11 68 . T he dis tr ic t c ourt ha d sa id:

I’ ve tr ie d hard

to se e if I c oul d say

that this w as out sid e t h e h e a rt l a n d . I c a n ’ts a y th a ti ti s . . . . I wi l l s a y, how ev er , that I don ’ t thin k I have the pow er to de part , an d by say ing that, that m eans tha t y ou are a llo w ed to ap pe al m e. A nd i f the E le ve nthCi rc uit dis ag re es w ith m e an d say s th at

I a m w ro ng, I did

have the pow er

to depart, then we c an com e back. I have a lready indicated I lik el y , giv enthe dis cr et ion , w oul d pr oba bly not do prison in this case. I w ouldprobably do no m ore than ha lfwa y ho us e . . . . S o I c a n n o td e p a rti n th i s c a s e b u tI i n v i t e an dw e l c o me an appeal. I w ill stay

the report date so that y ou can ap pe al m e if

y ou want to . . . .6

Id. As in the present ca se, the governm ent in Howle did no t objec t to the dist rict co ur t’s i nv it at io n fo r Howl e to ap pe al de sp it e h is ha vi ng waiv edhi s ri gh t t o d o s o. Se e id. ( “N ei the r the G ove rn m en t no r the de fe ndant b ro ught the ple a barg ai n to the c ourt’ s a tte nti on a ft er thi s st at em en t w as m ad e. ”) . T he c ourt w as aw ar e of the wa iver and had specifically question ed the defendant about it in the course of as ce rt ai nin g th at

it w as kno w ing and v oluntary . I d. a t 11 67. A s inthe pr es en t case, neither party

expressly

stated to the court that the waiver w ouldbar an ap pe al of the iss ue that the c ourt ha d e nc our ag ed the de fe ndant t o purs ue . S ee id. at 116 7–68 . I n th is c as e, how ev er , de fe nse c ouns el did a cknow le dge in the ex ch an ge le ad ing to the c ourt’ s c om m en ts tha t the de fe ndant c oul d a ppe al onl y

“ to the e xte nt w e ha ve any

r igh t t o a ppe al , and tha t ha s be enli m ite d by the negotiatio ns.” InH ow le w e co nc lud ed

that the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s st at em en ts w er e “ m ost re as ona bly int er pr et ed a s di ct a that ha d no e ff

ec t onthe c ourt’ s pr ior

a cc ep tanc e of the ple a ag re em en t. ” I d. a t 11 68. W e de te rm ine d th at adis tr ic t c ourt do es not have the power to m odify the term s of a plea a greem ent, which in Howle included the appeal wa iver. Id. W e re asoned that th e parties had struck a deal that includ ed the appeal wa iver, and altering the term s of that waiver would have cut the heart out of the barg ai n. S ee id. a t 11 69. “ H av ing appr ove d th e ple a ag re em en t, the7

dis tr ic t c ourt ha d no m or e ri ght to ch an ge it s te rm s th anit w oul d have to ch an ge the term s of any

other contract. ” Id. W e observed that a w aiver of a ppeal even inc lud es aw ai ve r of

the r igh t t o a

ppe al “ blatant e rr or . ” I d. H ow ev er , w e did not e that “ [i] n extrem e circ um stances—for instance, if the district court had sentenced How le to a public flogg ing—d ue process m ay require that an a

ppeal be heard de sp it e a p rev io us waiv er.” Se e id . at 1 16 9 n .5. H ow le w as not

sc he dul ed

to be f log ge d, so w e de cl ine d to r ea chthe m er its of the appeal and dism issed it based on the plea agree m ent as it wa s wr itten. Id. at 1169 . If the governm ent had been required to rem ind th e court of the appeal w ai ve r w he n th e co urt e nc our ag ed H ow le to ap pe al , the de ci sio n inthat c as e w oul d have c om e out

dif fe re ntl y . S ee id. W e co nc lud e, the re fo re , that H ow le fo re cl ose s B as co m

b’ s arg um en t tha t i f a dis tr ic t c ourt e nc our ag es ade fe ndant t o ap pe al apart ic ular iss ue and the gov er nm en t do es not

the n and the re a sse rt

that the ap pe al is ba rred by the ap pe al waiv er, i t i s p rev en te d fr om do in g s o o n app eal . The r esult in Howle and ou r re ading of it is con sistent with ou r earlier hol din g inBu ch an an , 131 F . 3d at 10 08–0 9, that an a ppe al w ai ve r w as e nf

or ce ab le despite the fact that at the sentence hearing the parties had disp uted the m erits of a particular sentencing issue. See id. at 1009. W e stated: “ De spite the sharp disagreem ent of the parties on the m erits of that issue, there is no ind ication either8

in the c oll oquy

or in the ple a ag re em en t tha t the part ie s a gr ee d th e iss ue w oul d be excepted from

the appeal w aiver the broad term s of which w ouldcover it. ” Id. at 1007 . W e co nc lud ed : “

N otw ith standi ng B uc hanan’ s e xpl ic it re se rv at ionof the ri ght to ar gue his pos iti on a

bout that i ssu e at

se nte nc ing , ar igh t tha t he e xe rc ise d, the issue was not exem

pted from the appeal w aiver. W e enforc e the appeal w aiver ac co rd ing to its te rm s. ” I d. a t 10 09. B uc hanan e sta bli she s th at

avig or ous dis put e ab out an is sue dur ing the se nte nc ing pr oc ee din gs d oe s no t pr es er ve that i ssu e fo r ap pe al when th e te rm s o f th e ap pe al waiv er d o n ot ex cep t i t fr om th e wai ve r. In the present case Bascom b pleaded guil ty , and his plea w as acc epted dur ing c hange of

ple a pr oc ee din gs i n w hic h he w as spe ci fi ca lly que sti one d a

bout his un derstanding of the appeal w aiver. T he court found that th e w aiver w as know ing ly

and v oluntari ly

m ad e, and B as co m

b do es not

dis put e that i t w as . T he di st ric t co ur t ac cep te d t he pl ea ag reem en t, i nc lu di ng as i t d idth e ap pe al waiv er. Bas co m b was ad jud ic at edgu il ty on t he ba si s o f hi s p le a p ur su an t t o t he ag reem en t. During the sentencing proceeding s, def ense counsel argued that the m andatory m ini m um m an da tor

y se nte nc e the c ourt w as f

or ce d to im

pose w as unr ea sona

ble but r ec ogni ze d th e pr obl em

he w oul d have r ai sin g th at iss ue on a

ppe al . H e sa id: Prior to the Court announcing sentencing, Your H onor, j ust f or the r ec or d to the e xte nt w e ha ve any r igh t t o ap pe al , and th atha s b een li m it edby the ne go ti at io ns , we9 w an t t o pr es er

ve the r igh t t o a

ppe al the f

ac t tha t w e thi nk that the se nte nc e the Co urt ha s to im pose in thi s c as e by w ay of m an da te f

ro m Co ngr es s is unr ea sona

ble , and that – The district court interr

upted coun sel to inform

him that he could no t appeal an issue un less he presented it to the dis trict court first, and “ [t] hen y ou can appeal it. ” Co unse l arg ue d th at

the se nte nc e of

120 m onths the c ourt w oul d be f or ce d to im pose w as unr ea sona

ble and c ru el and unusu al . T he c ourt a gr ee d th at the sentence w as unreasonable but no t that it was cr uel and unu sual. T hen couns el state d, “ Y es , Y our

H onor , but

I ’ ve m ad e m

y r ec or d, ” an d th e co urt r ep lie d:

“ Cert ai nl y . AndI th in k yoush ou ldpe rh ap s p ur su e it .” Inhis spe ci al c onc ur

re nc e, our

c oll ea gue sug ge sts that “ [w ] ha t r ea lly c ount s, according to Howle , is what the governm ent told th e defe ndant.” W e think what re al ly c ount s un de r H ow le and a ll of our oth er appe al w ai ve r de ci sio ns i s w ha t the de fe ndant and the gov er

nm en t a gr ee d to in the ple a barg ai n. Wha t c ount s is w he the r the de fe ndant k

now ing ly and v oluntari ly

a gr ee d to w ai ve his r igh t t o ap pe al an is sue or

iss ue s inan a gr ee m en t the c ourt a cc ep te d and whic h le d to the p l ea an ds en t en ce . No to n l y i s th at wh at co u n t s , t h at i s wh at s h o u l dco u n t . We w oul d no t r ev isi t the H ow le de ci sio n e ve n if the pr ior pane l pr ec ed en t r

ule pe rm it te d u s t o d o s o.10

T he H ow le hol din g r ei te rate s w ha t w e ha ve he ld b ef or e, Bu ch an an , 131 F. 3d at 10 08- 09, w hic h is that kn ow ing ly and v oluntari ly

e nte re d pl ea

a gr ee m en ts co nta ini ng a

ppe al w ai ve rs are li ke c ontra ct s inw hic h th e gove rn m en t and the de fe ndant h av e barg ai ne d f or ade al . S ee H ow le , 166 F . 3d at 11 68. D ef en dants an d th e gove rn m en t a lik e be ne fi t f ro m the abil ity

to barg ai n and unde rm ini ng the en fo rc ea bil ity of suc h barg ai ns h ar

m a ll part ie s th at

use the m . B uc hanan, 131 F . 3d at 100 8. F or

that r ea son, a m ong oth er s, a s lo ng a s an a ppe al w ai ve r is v oluntari ly an d kn ow ing ly

e nte re d in to a s part

of ava lid ple a ag re em en t, and tha t a gr ee m en t i s ac ce pte d by

the c ourt, the w ai ve r is e nf or ce ab le . I t c an not

be vit ia te d or

a lte re d by co m m en ts th e co ur t m ak es du rin g s en te nc in g. Appe al ing his se nte nc e is o ne of the r igh ts B as co m

b tr ad ed f or the governm ent’ s prom ise to drop all charges against his wif e. In negotiating an agreem ent, Ba scom

b was f ree to bargain away

his right to raise c onsti tutio nal issues as well as non-constitu tional on es, and he didso. S ee Br own, 415 F.3d at 1272 ( en fo rc ing an a

ppe al w ai ve r de spi te de fe ndant’ s c ont en tio n th at the statut e unde r w hic h he w as c onvi ct ed vio la te d th e non- de le ga tio n do ctri ne of A rt ic le I of the Constitu tion); W illiam s, 396 F. 3d at 134 2 (holdin g that the plain lang uage of a se nte nc e ap pe al w ai ve r can pr ec lud e a 28 U . S. C. § 22 55 c la im ba se d on ine ff ec tiv e as sis tanc e of

c ouns el ); Ru

bbo, 396 F . 3d at 13 35 ( hol din g th at the r igh t11

to appeal a sentence on Apprendi/Booker grounds can be w aived in a plea ag reem en t). W e do n ot m ean to im

ply that the r igh t t o a

ppe al ase nte nc e that vi olate s th e E igh th A m en dm en t be ca

use it is cr ue l and unusu al f

or som e re as on o the r than it s le ngth w ill a lw ay s be barr ed by an a ppe al w ai ve r. S ee H ow le , 166 F . 3d at 11 69 n.5 (“ In extrem e circ um stances—for instance, if the district court had sentenced How le to a public flogg ing—d ue process m ay require that an a

ppeal be heard d e s p i t e ap r e v i o u s wa i v e r . ” ) . Al l we n e e dt o d e c i d e h e r e i s th a tad e f e n d a n tmay, an d th is o ne did , kno w ing ly and v oluntari ly

w ai ve his r igh t t o a

ppe al ase nte nc e on the gr ound

that i ts l en gth , w hic h is le ss than th e statut or y m ax im um , r en de rs it cru el an d u nu su al . APPEAL DISMIS SED.12

H IL L , Ci rc uit

Jud ge , spe ci al ly

c onc ur ri ng: Be nni e Ba sc om

b, Jr . appe al s f

ro m his c onvi ct ionand t en -y ear se nte nc e of co nf ine m en t, a sse rt ing that hi s se nte nc e, m an da te d by statut e, vio la te s hi s E igh th Am endm ent right to be free f rom cruel and un usual pu nishm ent. T he United St at es m ove s to dis m iss Ba sc om b’ s a ppe al on the gr ound s th at he ha s w ai ve d hi s r i g h tt o ap p e a l a s p a rto f

h i s a g r e e men tt o p l e a dg u i l t y.

I. Bascom b grew m arij uana at his hom e. T he governm ent did no t contend th at he tr af fi ck ed in the dr ug. B as co m

b’ s w if e, how ev er , a lso li ve d inthe hom e an d w a s c h a r g e dw i t h p o s s e s s i o n o f th e mar i j u a n a . A tth e t i me o f

h i s arr e s t , B a s c o mb poss essed and was subsequentlyalso charged w ith po ssessio n of a . 22 caliber pis tol . Si nc e he w as not

adr ug d ea le r, Ba sc om

b ha d li ttl e to o ff

er the gov er

nm en t in e xc hange f

or le sse r ch ar ge s. H e did , how ev er , w an t hi s w if e to g o f re e. A s a re sul t, he a gr ee d to ade al in w hic h th e gove rn m en t dr oppe d a ll ch ar ge s a ga ins t hi s wife in exchange for his guilt y plea and adm issio n that he was grow ing “ m ore than 100" m arij uana plants – th e num ber of plants that would trigger a m andatoryfivey ear se nte nc e – a s w el l a s to the pos se ssi on o f the handgun – a lso tr igg er ing a m andatory

five-y ear m inim

um sentence. U nder the statutes, these sentencesAs fa r a s th e re c or d d isc los e s, the g ov e rnme nt g ave no thi ngfu rt he r a nd B a sc omb 1 rec eived nothingbut his wife’s re lease . At sentenc ing, the Probation Offic er a dvised the cour t that “. . . abse nt the mandatory 2 minimum require d sentenc e, the a mount of marijuana w e’r e talkingabout in this case, the guidelines sentenc ing r ang e would be be tween twe lve and e ighte en months.” 13 w o u l db e r e qu i r e dt o r

u n c o n s e c u t i v e l y. 1 A t se nte nc ing , the dis tr ic t j udge e xpr es se d c onc er n a bout the le ngth of

the m an da tor y m ini m um c onse cu tiv e se nte nc es – t eny ears : It’ s alm ost ironi c, but if he we re a drug dealer he’ d alm ost be in better sha pe . I m ean th is i s an in stanc e w he re if he w as tr af

fi ck ing in dr

ugs so he co ul d t urn s om eb od y in , th en he wou ldge t a l es se r se nt en ce. H e’ s ape rs on who p er

ha ps i s gr ow ing dr

ugs fo r him se lf

ge ts the hars he r se nte nc es . I t’ s li ke the lawha s turn ed on i ts h ea d. . . . T he co urt of fi ci al ly state s he re that bu t f

or the m an da tor

y m ini m um se nt en ce I wo ul d g iv e th is de fen da nt a si gn ifi can tl y les s s en te nc e. . . . T he se nte nc e w oul d be dif fe re nt. D ram at ic al ly

dif fe re nt. 2 Bascom b objected at sentencing th at the two consecutive m andatoryfivey ear m ini m

um se nte nc es w er e gr oss ly

e xc es siv e an d vi olate d hi s E igh th Am en dm en t ri gh t t o p ro po rti on al pu ni sh m en t. Se e Sol em v . H el m , 463 U . S. 298 , 303 (1 983) ( “ T he Co nst itu tio n r equir es us t o e xa m ine H el m ’ s se nte nc e to de te rm ine if

it is pr opor tio nate to thi s c ri m e” ). H e state d th at he w ish ed

to pr es er ve the r igh t t o a

ppe al the se nte nc e on this gr ound . The di st ric t co ur t, n ot edth at“ You can ’t app eal th atun le ss I pa ss on itfir st .

. . . Yo uh av e t o fi rs tp re s en ti tt o m e a n dth en I h av e t o fi n dwh et h eri t ’s14

un reas on ab le or n ot .” Ba sc om b’ s c ouns el the n st at ed : A nd i t i s our posi tio n th at in thi s c as e, Y our

H onor , w e be lie ve the sentence the Court is going to im pose, because it has no other au tho ri ty to do s o , is unr ea sona

ble . . . . T he f

ac t tha t the E igh th Am endm ent, that it’ s cruel and unusu al in light of the fac t that he has a cr im inal histo ry

category of one, no prior involvem ent in law enforcem ent, y et the Court has to in this circum stance im pose a se nte nc e of

ahun dr ed

and tw en ty

m onths. I t i s our posi tio n th at thi s se nte nc e is c ru el and unusu al and unr ea sona ble und er 355 3. The district court stated that he agre ed with the defe ndant th at the sentence w as unr ea sona

ble , but he ld tha t i t di d no t vi olate the E igh th A m en dm en t, to w hic h Bascom b responded, “ Ye s, y our Honor, but I’ ve m ade m y rec ord. T he district co ur t ag reed , st at in g, “ Cert ai nl y . AndI th in k yoush ou ldpe rh ap s p ur su e it .” At this point the court asked the governm ent, “ Anything else, Counsel? ” The go ve rn m en t re sp on de d, “Not fro m th e g ov ern m en t, Yo urHon or .” The district court then announced, “ The c ourt overrules the contentio n that the sentence is cruel and unusual. I do agree that it’ s unreasonable, but that doesn’t am ount to being cruel and unu sual.” A lth oughBa sc om

b w ai ve d hi s r igh t t o a

ppe al a ll iss ue s save ine ff ec tiv e assistance of counsel and prosecuto rial m iscondu ct, he appeals his sentence as se rt ing that i t vi olate s hi s c onst itu tio na l r igh t un de r E igh th A m en dm en t t o aOf c ourse, this ca se illustrates that a sig nificant portion of judicia l authority has alre ady 3 be e n tr ans fe rr e d b y

Con g re ss t o it se lf

. B y c re atin gmand ator

y min imum se nte nc e s, Con g re ss – well in advanc e of the commission of the offe nse – has r esolved a ll pertinent issues and c on sid e ratio ns in c ra ft ingan a pp ro pr iate se nte nc e . Wh ile muc h a s b e e n ma de (a pp ro pr iate ly

it i s submitt ed) a

bout “judicial leg islating,” this sort of “congressional a djudication” re prese nts an unfortunate blurringof the sepa rate responsibilities of our three branc hes of g overnme nt. Go ve rnme nt c ouns e l, t

he e xec uti ve br anc h, g e ts i nto the a c t by se le c tin gc ha

rg e s f ro m a me nu of po ssi ble tr ans g re ssi on s, the re by c ounti ngba c kw ard s f

ro m th e de sir e d s e nte nc e in t his 15 se nte nc e pr opor

tio na te to his c ri m e. T he gov er nm en t f ile d am oti on t o di sm iss , based upo n Bascom

b’ s agreem ent to waive his right to appeal. Ba scom b argues that the gov ernm ent acquiesced at sentencing to bo th the objection and this app eal by not c ontra dic tin g th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s in te rp re ta tio n of the le ga l c onse que nc es of the e ve nts a t se nte nc ing . II. T he re c anbe no d oubt , a s th e m aj or ity tod ay hol ds, that B as co m

b a gr ee d in his plea agreem ent not to appeal his convictio n and sentence on any grounds other th an in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l o r pr os ecu to ria l m is co nd uc t. Fu rth erm or e, I a g r e e wi t h th e maj o r i t y th a tth e r e s u l ti n th i s c a s e i s c o n t r o l l e db y United States v. H ow le , 166 F. 3d 11 66 (11 Cir. 1999 ). I write to suggest, however, that the court th m igh t w el l r ev isi t Howle. Under H ow le , the j udicial autho rity of the U nited States, which I had he re tof or e be lie ve d r ep ose d inthe dis tr ic t j udge , ha s be entr an sf er re d to the e x e c u t i v e , an As s i s t a n tUn i t e dS t a t e s At t o rn e y. Howle ins tr uc ts tha t the 3ca s e t o th e c h ar ge t h atwi l l p ro d u ce i t . As p arto f t h i s p ro ce s s , th e go v ern m en tch o o s es t o fo re go its deleg ated oblig ation to see to “the faithful execution of the la ws” by dismiss ing c harg es ag ainst the wife. Th e thi rd br anc h is e lim inate d a

nd g ive n n o r ole to p lay

in t his pr oc e ss. We a re ta ught t hat, whe n th e dis tr ic t ju dg e e xpla ins the le g a l r e su lt o f t he pr oc e e din g s, 4 including e vents occ urringduringsentenc ing, to the de fenda nt, the defe ndant should ask the AU SA whe the r t

he e xplanatio n is c or

re c t. 16 int er pr et at ionand e xpl an at ionof the de fe ndant’ s r igh ts –

inc lud ing his r igh t t o ap pe al – pr ovi de d by

the dis tr ic t j udge to the de fe ndant at se nte nc ing is not b i n d i n g , b u tr a t h e r

mer e l y dic ta . Wha t r ea lly c ount s, a cc or din g to H

ow le , is what the gov er nm en t t old

the de fe ndant. I m ag ine the de fe ndant’ s surp ri se upo n le ar nin g th at the dis tr ic t j udge ’ s in te rp re ta tio n of the law , e xpl ai ne d to the de fe ndant at se nte nc ing , ha s be entr um pe d by the c ontra ct

he sig ne d w iththe gove rn m en t’ s a tto rn ey . A ll the m or e sur pr isi ng, sin ce a t se nte nc ing w he n th e j udge e xpl ai ne d th e lawto the de fe ndant, inc lud ing his r igh t t o a ppe al , the gove rn m en t vo ic ed

no o bj ec tio n, it s a tto rn ey sto od m ute , not r em ind ing any one of the inv iol at e co ntr ac tua l r igh ts tha t the gov er nm en t kn eww oul d ul tim at el y pr ev ai l ov er t he jud ge ’s in te rp ret at io n o f th e la w. 4 This holdin g is particularly disturbi ng sin ce w e have enshrined the plea co llo quy a s th e ha llm ar

k of akno w ing and v oluntary ple a. L eavin g ou t e ve n a sm idg enof

thi s m an tr a re qui re s af

ind ing that the ple a w as ne ith er kno w ing nor vol unt ar y . N one the le ss, w he n th e dis tr ic t c ourt m ak es an a ff irm at ive m iss ta te m en t17

of the lawto the de fe ndant, say , f or e xa m ple , “ if I say thi s or do tha t, y ou h av e the ri ght to ap pe al , ” the re is no l eg al e ff ec t onthe ple a w ha tso ev er . I t i s a s th oughit ne ve r oc curr ed . I t i s dic ta . This apparently

is the law. I r eluctantly

concur.