2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 3-23-2010 

# U SA v . N el son P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 07-4721

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" U SA v . N e l s on " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1671. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1671

### H o n o rab le Y v ette K an e, C h ief U n itedS tates D istrict C o urt Ju d g e f o r th e M id d le * 

### Di s tr i c t of Pe nns yl vani a , s i tt i ng by de s i gnat i on. NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

_____________ N o. 07- 4721

_____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. S E AN NE L S ON, A p p e llan t.

_____________ O n A p p e a l f

ro m th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . N o. 06- cr - 520) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n . Je ro m e B . S im a n d le
S u b m itted U n d er T h ir d C ir cu itL . A . R . 3 4 . 1 (a),

J anuary26 , 2010 B efor e: FU E N T E S and FI SH E R , C i r cui tJ udges

and K A N E , D i s t r i ctJ udge.

* ( O pi ni on Fi l ed: M ar ch 23, 2010)
OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

### Th e Dis tric t Court had j uris dict ion p ursuant t o 1 8 U .S.C. § 32 31 . This Court has 1 

### j urisd ictio np ursu an t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 an d1 8 U .S .C . § 3 7 4 2 . “Ad ef en d an t’s v alid ap p ellate w aiv er d o es n o t d ep riv e th is C o urt o f j urisd ictio no v er th e d ef

en d an t’s claim s, and w e r et ai n sub

ject m atte r juris dict ion o ver the defend ant’ s a pp ea l des pite the wai ver. ” Uni te d States v . J

ac k s on , 523 F.3d23 4, 24 2 (3dCir. 20 08 ) ( ci tati onom itte d). “ We examine the le gali ty

of waiver -of-appeals prov is ions de no vo , a s i t i s a qu es ti onof

law.” Uni te d States v . Khattak, 273 F.3d55 7, 56 0 (3dCir. 20 01 ) ( ci tati onom itte d).

- 2- FU E N T E S, C i r cui tJ udge: A p p e llan t, S e a n N e lso n , p led g u iltyto c o n sp ira c yto d istrib u te a n d to p o ss e ss w ith i nt entt o di s t r i but e coc ai ne and c ocai ne bas e. I n t he w r i t t en pl ea a gr eement , N el s on wa i v e d h i s r i g h tt o a p p e a l i f h i s s e n t e n c e f

e l l wi t h i n a s p e c i f

i e d Gu i d e l i n e s r a n g e . At
s ent enci ng, t he D i s t r i ctC our ti m pos ed a s ent ence w i t hi n t hatr ange. N el s on appea l s fr om t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s J udgm ent , ar gui ng t hathi s appel l at e w ai vers houl d notbe enf or ced a s i tw oul d w or k a “mi s carr i age of j us t i ce. ” I n par t i cul ar , N el s on cont ends t hatt he i m peac hm entof a w i t nes s w ho t es t i fi ed on hi s behal f ats ent enci ng w as unfor es een a nd th a t ce rta in h e a rsa ysta tem e n ts m a d e b yth e G o v e rn m e n t ex p o se d th e D istric t C o u rt to extr emel ypr ej udi ci al i nfor m at i on, r ender i ng hi s s ent enci ng pr ocee di ng unfai r . For t he
re a so n s th a t f

o llo w , w e w ill e n f

o rc e N e lso n ’s w a iv e r o f h is a p p e llate rig h ts, d e c lin e to
re a c h th e m e rits o f

h is a p p e a l, an d a f

f irm th e D istric t C o u rt’s J u d g m e n t. 1 

### I. Be c aus e we wr i t e pr i m ar i l y for the part i e s , we onl y

di s c us s the fa c t s and proceedi ng s t o the exte nt nece ss ar y fo r the re soluti onof

the c as e.

### - 3-

N e lso n p led g u iltyto c o n sp ira c yto d istrib u te a n d to p o ss e ss w ith in ten t to dis t ri bu t e fi ve k i l og ram s or m ore of co cai ne an d fiftykil og ram s or m ore of co cai ne b ase ( “cr ack c ocai ne”) , i n vi ol at i on of 21 U
. S. C . § 841( a) ( 1) and ( b) ( 1) ( A )
. I n hi s pl ea agr eement , N el s on w ai ved hi s r i ghtt o appea l i f hi s “s ent ence f[e l l ] w i t hi n orbel ow t he Gu i d e l i n e s r a n g e t h a tr e s u l t s f r o m a t o t a l Gu i d e l i n e s o f f e n s e l e v e l o f

2 9 . ” ( Ap p . 1 4 . ) At t he cha nge of pl ea he ar i ng, t he D i s t r i ctC our ts peci fi cal l yques t i oned N el s on aboutt he appel l at e w ai vercont ai ned i n t he pl ea a gr eement , and N el s on confi r m ed thathe
u n d e rs to o d th e e f

f e c t o f th e w a iv e r. ( I

d. a t 4 3

– 4 5 .) A t th e se n ten c in g h e a rin g , d e f e n se c o u n se l n o ted th a t a n u m b e r o f N e lso n ’s f

a m ily
m ember s w er e pr es ent ; t he D i s t r i ctC our tas ked i f anyof them w oul d l i ke t o s peak, and d e f e n s e c o u n s e l r e p e a te d th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s q u e s tio n . (I d. a t6 1 . ) V i n c e n tP e r r y, N e ls o n ’s s te p f

a th e r, v o lu n te e re d to s p e a k a n d a s k e d f o r l e n ie n c yo n N e ls o n ’s b e h a lf
. R el evantt o t hi s appea l , i n r es pons e t o a ques t i on fr om t he D i s t r i ctC our t , Per r ys t at ed t hat he di d notknow t hatN el s on w as “dea l i ng i n cr ack c ocai ne. ” (I d. at63. ) D efe ns e couns el b rie f lya llu d e d to P e rry ’s r e m a rk s in h is c lo sin g sta tem e n t. A ft erN el s on fi ni s hed s peaki ng, t he G overnm entas ked fora conf er ence ats i debar
a n d re p o rte d th a t P e rryh a d b e e n c o o p e ra tin g w ith th e G o v e rn m e n t an d th a t, co n tra ryto hi s t es t i m ony , he knew of N el s on’ s i nvol vement i n drug t r aff i cki ng. T he G overnm ent exp l ai ned as fol l ow s:

V i ncentPer r yt ol d t he C our ts om e thi ngs t hatw e d on’ tbel i eve t o be t rue w hen he t ol d us t hat h e d idn ’ tknow anyt hi ng aboutSean N el s on bei ng

### - 4-

i nvol ved i n drugs , t hati s , he’ s been cooper at i ng w i t h t he governm ent and he has gi ven expl i ci ti nfor m at i on about
. . . Sean N el s on’ s i n v o lvem en t i n drug t r aff i cki ng overt he y ear s . Som e of the i nfor m at i on he’ s gi ven us i ncl uded that

. . . Sean [ w as] i nvol ved i n di s t r i but i ng cr ack s i nce a tl eas t2003. A nd he talk e d v ery speci fi cal l y abo ut on e i ncident w here he drove Sean N el son to F eli p e T ell eria’s h o u se, h e d esc ri b ed the h o u se an d d esc ri b ed the ca r an d it ’s an i nci dentt hathappene d i n 2006 and thati nci dentw as captur ed on the w i r et ap. N ow , t he agent s di d not s ee V i ncentPer r yon t he s ur vei l l ance fr om t he pol e camer a, butt heydi d s ee the ca rhe des cr i bed dur i ng t hatt r ans act i on. H e s ai d Sean N el s on bought ni ne ounces of coc ai ne fr om Fel i pe Tel l er i a, and that co m p o rt s w ith sev era l o f the ca ll s that w e h av e o n the w ir etap s tha t w ere g o ing o n that su m m er. So as m uch as I di dn’ t w ant t o br i ng t hi s up, and I cert ai nl ydon’ tw ant t o m ake thi s a m at t er of publ i c cons um pt i on beca us e hi s cooper at i on has been ongoi ng, al t hough I ’ m nots ur e w hatt he ef fec tof t h is w i l l be, i thas t o be so rte d o u t, he ’s b e e n a c o o p e ra to r w ith th e sta te , . . . w e w o u ld n ’t w a n t itto come out publ i cl y , but I don’ t w antt he r ecor d t o s t and now , as i tw as w i t h t he C our t , and the C our tt hi nki ng t hatM r . Per r yw as unaw ar e of hi s s t eps on’ s drug t r aff i cki ng. (I d. a t 8 0

– 8 1 .) T he D i s t r i ctC our tas ked the G overnm entw hetheri t“s houl d as k [Per r y ] i f he
w ants t o ch ang e anyof h i s st at em ents t o m e abo ut hi s l ack o f kn ow l edg e, or does t hat j ust di g t hi ngs deepe r ?” (I

d. a t 8 1 .) T h e G o v e rn m e n t re p lied th a t su c h a q u e stio n “ w o u ld d ig t hi ngs deepe r ” bec aus e t he court r oom w as “ful l of drug deal er s ” and “ i tm i ghtbe d a n g e ro u s ” f

o r P e rr y . (I

d. ) A fter f

u rt h er d iscu ssion w ith co u n sel, the D istri ct C o u rt
s t at ed that“I ’ m notgoi ng t o hol d i tagai ns tSean N el s on i n anyw ay , pr et t ym uch w hat M r . Per r yhas s ai d. ” (I

d. a t 8 2 .) D e f

e n se c o u n se l re sp o n d e d to th e D istric t C o u rt’ sta tem e n t, an d th e C o u rt re itera ted th a t itw o u ld n o t co n sid e r P e rry ’s s tate m e n ts in
s ent enci ng N el s on:

### - 5-

I t hi nk t he i m por t antt hi ng i s t hatt he def endant ’ s r i ght s be pr es er ved i n al l of t hi s and thatI cont i nue t o b eli eve t hathe s houl d be s ent ence d fort he i nfor m at i on t hat I have befor e m e and not hi ng m or e, not hi ng l es s . . . . A nd t hat m eans , I ’ l l be more expl i ci t , t hathi s s t epfa t her , w hetherhe h ad i nfor m at i on ab o utt he drug deal i ng ordi dn’ t , adds not hi ng i n t hatr egar d t o w hatI’m s ent enci ng M r . N el s on forand thati s w hathe pl ed gui l t yt o. (I d. a t 8 3 .) N el son w as subj ectt o a st atutor ym and at orym i nim um sent ence o f 12 0 m on t hs’ i m pr i s onm ent . T he D i s t r i ctC our tconcl uded, how ever , t hatN el s on qual i fi ed fort he “s afe t yval ve” pr ovi s i on of 18 U
. S. C . § 3553( f) and coul d be s ent ence d undert he
m andat or ym i ni m um . W i t h a t ot al offe ns e l evel of 27 and a cr i m i nal hi s t or ycat egoryof I , N el s on’ s advi s or yG ui del i nes r ange w as 70 t o 87 m ont hs
. T he D i s t r i ctC our ti m pos ed a
se n ten c e o f

7 8 m o n th s’ im p riso n m e n t. O n appea l , N el s on ar gues t hatt hi s C our ts houl d notenfor ce hi s appel l at e w ai veras it w o u ld w o rk a m a n if

e st in ju stic e b yp re v e n tin g h im f ro m c h a llen g in g th e f

a irn e ss o f

h is
se n ten c in g p ro c e e d in g . H e f u rth e r a rg u e s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt c o m m itt e d p lain e rro r in fai l i ng t o o rdert he G ov ernm ent t o tur n o ver Perry ’s pri or i nco nsi st ent s t at em ents . 

### II. “W ai vers of app eal s, i f enter ed int o k no w i ng l yand vo l un t ari l y , are val i d, un l ess t heyw or k a mi s carr i age of j us t i ce. ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. Khat t ak , 2 7 3 F . 3 d 5 5 7 , 5 6 3 (3d C ir
. 2001)
. N el s on does notar gue thathi s w ai verw as unknow i ng ori nvol unt ary , i ns t ead
as s er t i ng t hati t s enfor cementw oul d r es ul ti n a mi s carr i age of j us t i ce. Fact or s t o cons i der befor e “‘ r el i ev[i ng] t he def endantof t he w ai ver ’ ” t o pr eventa mi s carr i age of j us t i ce

### - 6-

i ncl ude “‘ t he cl ar i t yof t he err or , i t s gr avi t y , i t s char act er( e. g. , w hetheri tconce r ns a fa ct i s s ue, a s ent enci ng gui del i ne, ora s t atut or ym axi m um ) , t he i m pactof t he err oron t he defe ndant , t he i m pactof corr ect i ng t he err oron t he governm ent , and the ext entt o w hi ch t he def endantacqui es ced i n t he r es ul t . ’ ” I d. ( quot i ng U

ni t ed Stat es v. Teet er , 257 F. 3d 1 4 , 2 5

– 2 6 (1st C ir
. 2 0 0 1 )). N el s on ar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tw as expos ed t o “extr emel ypr ej udi ci al i n f o r m a t i o n , ” s p e c i f

i c a l l y t h e G o v e r n m e n t ’ s h e a r s a y s t a t e m e n tth a t , a c c o r d i n g t o P e r r y, N e lso n d istrib u ted c ra c k c o c a in e sin c e “ a t lea st 2 0 0 3 ” w h e n N e lso n h a d o n lya d m itt e d to
a cons pi r acyfr om J ul y2004 t o J ul y2006. ( N el s on B r . 9–10. ) T he G overnm ent ’ s us e of hear s ayt o i m peac h Per r yats i debardoes notcons t i tut e the type of “ unus ual ci r cumst ance [ o f ] a n e r r o ra m o u n t i n g t o a m i s c a r r i a g e o f j u s t i c e ” c o n t e m p l a t e d b y Khat t ak
. A l t hough Per r y ’ s t es t i m onyand t he G overnm ent ’ s r es pons e ats i debarw er e unfor es een byt he par t i es , al l ow i ng N el s on’ s s ent ence t o s t and uncha l l enged doe s notw or k a mi s carr i age of j us t i ce, par t i cul ar l yi n l i ghtof t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s s t at ement t hati tw oul d notcons i der Per r y ’ s s t at ement r egar di ng hi s l ack of know l edge of

N el s on’ s drug t r aff

i cki ng nort he Go v e r n me n t ’ s i mp e a c h me n te v i d e n c e i n a r r i v i n g a tNe l s o n ’ s s e n t e n c e . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we concl ude thatN el s on w ai ved hi s r i ghtt o t he pr es entappea l , and w e do notr eac h t he
me r i t s o f h i s r e ma i n i n g c l a i m. III . F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, w e a f f irm th e D istric t C o u rt’s J u d g m e n t.