1 T h e H o n o rab le N icho las G
. G ara u fi s, U n it ed S tat es D istri ct Ju d g e fo r th e E astern * 2 D i s tr i ctof

N ew Y or k, s i t t i ng by des i gnat i on. 1 09- 0321- pr M a t t he w s v. U
. S.

1 UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS 2 F OR THE S E CON D C IRC U IT 3 4 5 A ugus tT erm , 2010 6 7 ( A r gued: J ul y 9, 2010 D eci ded: O ct ober6, 2010) 8 9 D ocketN o( s )
. 09- 0321- pr 10 11 12 C URT IS M A T T H E WS , 13 P e tit io n e r-Ap p e lla n t, 14 15 16 — v . — 17 18 U NI TE D S TA TES OF A MERI CA , 19 20 R es pondent

- Appel l ee . 21 22 2 3 B e f

o re: 24 25 R AG GI AN D L YNCH , C i r cui tJudges , G A RA U FIS , D is tr i ct Judge
. * 26 2 7

__________________ 2 8 Pet i t i oner - A ppel l antC ur t i s M atthew s pl eade d gui l ty t o an i nf or m at i on char gi ng 2 9 hi m w i th r acke t eer i ng, drug- r el at ed murde r , and the us e of a f i r earm . M atthew s cont ends 3 0 th a t h e w a s u n c o n stitu tio n a lly c h a rg e d b y in fo rm a tio n w ith a c rim e th a t co u ld e x p o se h im1 A fte r d u e c o n sid e ra tio n o f P e tit io n e r-A p p e llan t’s p e titio n fo r re h e a rin g , w h ich is ** 2 deni ed, w e have s ua s pont e amended ouropi ni on. 2 1 t o capi t al puni s hm ent , i n vi ol at i on of hi s Fi f th A m endmentr i ghtt o i ndi ctm entby a gr and 2 ju ry fo r a c a p ital o ffe n se . W h ile d ru g -re late d m u rd e r c a n b e p u n ish a b le b y d e a th if 3 cert ai n aggr avat i ng ci r cumst ance s ar e s peci f i ed i n the cha r gi ng i ns trum ent , no s uch 4 aggr avat i ng f

act or s w er e s peci f

i ed i n the i nf

or m at i on. A ccor di ngl y, M atthew s w as not 5 char ged w i th a capi t al of f ens e. H i s convi ct i on i s ther ef or e A FF I RMED . 6 7 8 9 B R EN DAN W HI TE , W h ite & W h it e , N e w Y o rk , N e w Y o rk , f or P et i t i on er10 Appel lant . 11 12 R I C HA R D M. T UCKER , A ssi st ant U nit ed S t at es A t t orney (J o A nn M
. N avickas, 1 3 A s s is ta n t U n ite d S ta te s A tto rn e y , on the br i ef ), f orL or ett a E. L ynch, U ni t ed 1 4 S tat es A tt o rne y for the E astern D istri ct o f N ew Y o rk, B roo k lyn , N ew Y o rk, 15 f

orR es pondent

-Appel l ee . 16 17 AM ENDED OP I NI ON ** 18 G ERAR D E. L YNCH , C i r cui tJudge : 1 9 T hi s cas e r equi r es us t o deci de w hetherthe Fi f th A m endmentguar ant ees an 2 0 u n w a iv a b le r ig h t to in d ictm e n t b y g ra n d ju ry if th e sta tu te u n d e r w h ich th e d e fe n d a n t is 2 1 char ged author i zes capi t al puni s hm entunders om e ci r cumst ance s . W e hol d thats uch an 2 2 unw ai vabl e r i ghtexi s t s onl y w her e the cha r gi ng i ns trum entexpos es the def endantt o t he 2 3 ri s k o f c a p ita l p u n is h m e n t. 24 BA CKGROUND3 1 In D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 0 , a s e c u rity g u a rd w a s s h o t an d ro b b e d a s h e tra n sp o rte d d e p o sits 2 fro m a N o rth F o rk B a n k A T M . T h e F B I’s in v e stig a tio n o f th e ro b b e ry u lti m a tely led to 3 C u rtis M a tth e w s, a m e m b e r o f th e so -c a lled “ M & P C re w ,” a c rim in a l g ro u p o p e ra tin g in 4 the ar ea of

M i l l erand Pi t ki n A venues i n B r ookl yn, N ew Y or k. T he M & P C r ew 5 di s tr i but ed mar i

j uana, M D M A , coca i ne, and cr ack c ocai ne, and enga ged i n arm ed 6 r obbery, ki dnapi ng, ar s on, and murde r . M atthew s and otherm ember s of the M & P C r ew 7 w er e i ndi ct ed on cha r ges of bank r obbery, cons pi r acy t o comm i tbank r obbery, and us i ng 8 a fi re a rm in fu rt h e ra n c e o f a c la im o f v io le n c e a ri s in g fr o m th e N o rt h F o rk B a n k ro b b e ry . 9 M atthew s w as l at ernamed i n a s uper s edi ng i ndi ctm entchar gi ng hi m w i th a br oad r ange 1 0 of

cr i m es ar i s i ng f

r om the ac t i vi t i es of

the M & P C r ew , i ncl udi ng r acke t eer i ng, r obbery, 1 1 c o n s p i r a c y t o d i s tr i b u t e s e v e r a l d ru g s , mu r d e ri n a i d o f r a c k e t e e r i n g , a n d s e v e r a l f i r e a r ms 1 2 c o u n ts . 1 3 T h e mu r d e rc h a r g e s t e mm e d f r o m a d ru g r i v a l ry . I n De c e mb e r2 0 0 1 , M a t th e ws 1 4 w as s hotby a mar i j uana de al ernamed Shel don J oehi l l , w i th w hom the M & P C r ew had 1 5 b e e n fi g h tin g . J o e h ill f ir e d fr o m a tru c k h e h a d b o rr o w e d fr o m R a y m o n B h o la is in g h
. 1 6 T hr ee mont hs af t erhe w as s hot , M atthew s s aw B hol ai s i ngh and Lennox B r adl ey i n the 1 7 tru ck an d m ist ak en ly co n clud ed that the tw o h ad b ee n inv o lved in the sh o o ti n g . In 1 8 re talia tio n , M a tth e w s s h o t an d k ill e d B ra d ley , an d d ire c ted a n o th e r M & P c re w m e m b e r to 1 9 s h o o t B h o la is in g h
. 2 0 M atth ew s’s tri al w as sc h ed u led to b eg in in Ju n e 2 0 0 6
. In late M ay , h o w ev er, 2 1 M atthew s ent er ed a pl ea a gr eementunderw hi ch he a gr eed t o w ai ve i ndi ctm entand pl ead4 1 gui l ty t o a s uper s edi ng i nf or m at i on char gi ng hi m w i th one counteac h of r acke t eer i ng, 18 2 U
. S
. C
. § 1 9 6 2 (c), d rug -relat ed m u rde r, 2 1 U
. S
. C
. § 8 4 8 (e)(1)(A ), an d the u se o f a fir ea rm 3 i n f

ur ther ance of

the drug- r el at ed murde r , 18 U
. S. C
. § 924( c) ( 1) ( A ) ( i i i )
. T he pl ea 4 agr eements peci f i ed thatthe s t atut ory m axi m um f orboth the drug- r el at ed murde rand the 5 fire a rm c o u n t w a s life im p riso n m e n t. T h e p lea a g re e m e n t es tim a ted th e a p p lica b le 6 gui del i nes s ent enci ng r ange t o be 360 mont hs t o l i f e, pl us a cons ecut i ve 120 mont hs on 7 the f

i r earm s char ge. 8 O n M ay 30, 2006, M atthew s w ai ved i ndi ctm entand pl eade d gui l ty t o al l count s of 9 the s uper s edi ng i nf or m at i on. T he di s tr i ctcourtas ked w hy the governm enthad not 1 0 ob t ai ned a supersedi ng i nd i ct m ent r at her than proceed i ng by i nform at i on , as a 1 1 s uper s edi ng i ndi ctm entw oul d nothave r equi r ed an a l l ocut i on w ai vi ng the r i ghtt o a gr and 1 2 j ury. T h e g o v ern m en t r esp o n d ed that itw as u n d er a ti m e c o n str aint, an d the c o u rt 1 3 pr ocee ded w i th t he al l ocut i on, ul t i m at el y f i ndi ng thatM atthew s had know i ngl y and 1 4 v o lun tari ly w aive d h is r igh t t o ind ictm en t by a g ran d jury
. In Ju n e 2 0 0 7 , the d istri ct co u rt 1 5 s ent ence d M atthew s t o f i f ty year s ’ i m pr i s onm ent , cons i s t i ng of f or ty year s f

or 1 6 r acke t eer i ng and f or ty year s f

ordrug- r el at ed murde r , t o run concurr ent l y, and a 1 7 cons ecut i ve t en yea r s f orthe f i r earm char ge. M atthew s r ai s ed no obj ect i on, ei theratpl ea 1 8 o r se n ten c e , to th e a b se n c e o f a g ra n d ju ry in d ictm e n t. 1 9 I n J une 2008, M atthew s f i l ed a pr o s e pet i t i on t o vaca t e hi s s ent ence under28 2 0 U
. S. C
. § 2255, ar gui ng f i r s t , thathe had r ece i ved i nef f ect i ve as s i s t ance of

couns el , and 2 1 s econd, thatthe di s tr i ctcourtl acke d j ur i s di ct i on beca us e he w as char ged by i nf or m at i on5 1 ra th e r th a n in d ictm e n t u n d e r a sta tu te, 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 8 (e )(1 )(A ), w h ich p e rm its 2 i m pos i t i on of

a dea th s ent ence undercert ai n ci r cumst ance s . T he di s tr i ctcourtdeni ed 3 M atthew s ’ s pet i t i on. W e gr ant ed a c ert i f i cat e of appea l abi l i ty, l i m i t ed t o the s econd 4 is s u e . 5 DI S CU S S I ON 6 M atthew s ar gues thatbeca us e he w as char ged by i nf or m at i on w i th a cr i m e that 7 c o u ld , u n d e r so m e c irc u m sta n c e s, b e p u n ish a b le b y th e d e a th p e n a lty , h is F ifth 8 A m endmentr i ghtt o i ndi ctm entby a gr and j ury w as vi ol at ed. T he Fi f th A m endment 9 pr ovi des that“[ n] o per s on s hal l be hel d t o ans w erf ora capi t al , orotherw i s e i nf amous 1 0 cr i m e, unl es s on a pr es entm entori ndi ctm entof a G r and J ury . . . . ” U
. S. C ons t . amend. 1 1 V , cl
. 1. T hus , i n t he court s of the U ni t ed St at es , a def endantm ay notbe cha r ged w i t h a 1 2 c a p ita l c ri m e , o r i n d e e d w ith a n y fe lo n y , u n le s s th e c h a rg e is b ro u g h t b y a g ra n d ju ry . 1 3 G r een v. U ni t ed St at es , 356 U
. S. 165, 183 ( 1958) ( overrul ed on othergr ounds by B l oom 1 4 v . Il lin o is , 3 9 1 U .S . 1 9 4 (1 9 6 8 )) ; M a c k in v . U n ite d S ta te s , 1 1 7 U .S . 3 4 8 , 3 5 0 -5 2 (1 8 8 6 ). 1 5 T hi s r i ght , how ever , l i ke mostot herr i ght s of cr i m i nal def

endant s , or di nar i l y m ay be 1 6 w ai ved, i f

the w ai veri s know i ng and i nt el l i gent . See Fed. R
. C r i m . P. 7( b) ( perm i t t i ng 1 7 w ai ver of i nd i ct m ent and p rosecut i on by i nform at i on forno n-capi t al fel on i es) ; see al so 1 8 U n ited S tate s v . F e rg u so n , 7 5 8 F .2 d 8 4 3 , 8 5 0 -5 1 (2 d C ir. 1 9 8 5 ) (“ W a iv e r o f in d ictm e n t is 1 9 an ac tcl othed i n f or m al i ty. A l though no part i cul arcat echi s m i s pr es cr i bed, the w ai ver 2 0 m ustbe m ade in op en co urt , defend ants m ustbe inf orm ed o f the n ature of and the cause 2 1 forthe acc usat i on , and the co urtm ustbe sat i sf i ed thatthe d efendan t s w ai ve thei r r i gh t s,6 1 k n o w in g ly , inte lli g e n tly , an d v o lu n tar ily .”). S u c h w a iv e rs a re n o t u n u su a l, es p e c ially in 2 c o n n e c tio n w ith p le a a g re e m e n ts . 3 M atthew s cont ends thathi s ci r cumst ance s f al l w i thi n a l i m i t ed exc ept i on t o the 4 w aiva b il ity o f th e righ t t o g ran d jury ind ictm en t, ca rve d o u t by the S u p rem e C o u rta h alf5 century ago. I n Sm i th v. U ni t ed St at es , 360 U
. S. 1 ( 1959) , the Supr eme C our tr ever s ed 6 the convi ct i on of J ohnny R ay Sm i th, w ho had w ai ved i ndi ctm entand pl eade d gui l ty t o an 7 i nf

or m at i on char gi ng hi m w i th t r ans por t i ng a ki dnapi ng vi ct i m acr os s s t at e l i nes . T he 8 sta tu te u n d e r w h ich S m ith w a s c h a rg e d p ro v id e d th a t a p e rso n c o n v icte d o f in ter sta te 9 ki dnapi ng coul d be puni s hed by dea th i f the vi ct i m w as harm ed, butonl y by a maxi m um 1 0 o f life im p riso n m e n t if the v ictim w a s re lea se d u n h a rm e d . Id . at 7 . T h e in fo rm a tio n to 1 1 wh i c h S mi th p l e a d e d d i d n o ts t a t e wh e th e rS mi th ’ s v i c t i m h a d b e e n r e l e a s e d h a r me d
. On 1 2 appea l , Sm i th ar gued thathe had be en cha r ged w i th an of f ens e thatcoul d be puni s hed by 1 3 death i f

the governm ents how ed attr i al thathi s vi ct i m w as harm ed. T he governm ent 1 4 ar gued thatthe s t atut e cr eat ed tw o of f ens es : ki dnapi ng w i thoutharm , puni s habl e by 1 5 i m pr i s onm ent , and ki dnapi ng w i th harm , puni s habl e by dea th, and thatSm i ths ’ vi ct i m had 1 6 notbeen i nj ur ed. T he Supr eme C our tagr eed w i th Sm i th: 1 7 [ T r ans por t i ng a ki dnapi ng vi ct i m acr os s s t at e l i nes ] i s puni s habl e by 1 8 death i f cert ai n pr oof

i s i ntr oduced a ttr i al
. . . . [ W ] hen the of f ens e as 1 9 charged i s suf fi ci entl y b road t o just i fy a capit al verdi ct , the tr i al m ust 2 0 pr ocee d on thatbas i s , even though the evi dence l at eres t abl i s hes that 2 1 s uch a ve r di ctcannotbe s us t ai ned bec aus e the vi ct i m w as r el eas ed 2 2 u n h a rm e d . It i s n e ith e r p ro c e d u ra lly c o rre c t n o r p ra c tica l to a w a it 2 3 th e c o n c lu sio n o f th e e v id e n c e to d e ter m in e w h e th e r th e a c c u se d is 2 4 bei ng pr os ecut ed f ora capi t al of

f ens e. 257 1 Id . at 8 . T h e C o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t S m ith ’s w a iv e r o f in d ictm e n t w a s in v a lid , rev e rse d h is 2 c o n v ic tio n , a n d re m a n d e d to th e d is tr ic t c o u rt w ith in s tru c tio n s to d is m is s th e in fo rm a tio n . 3 I d. at10. 4 M atthew s cont ends thatSm i th contr ol s thi s cas e, and r ender s hi s w ai verof 5 in d ictm e n t an d su b se q u e n t co n v ictio n in v a lid , b e c a u se “ th e S u p re m e C o u rt h a s lo n g h e ld 6 th a t an y su c h w a iv e r is in v a lid w h e re th e p o ten tial p u n ish m e n t is d e a th , ev e n if d e a th is 7 nots ought
. ” B r i ef f orPet i t i oner - A ppel l antat11. B utthi s m i s appr ehends Sm i th. T he 8 cr i t i cal f

acti n Sm i th w as notthatthe dea th penal ty w as theor et i cal l y avai l abl e, under 9 cert ai n ci r cumst ance s , underthe s t atut e cr eat i ng the of f ens e w i th w hi ch Sm i th w as 1 0 char ged. R ather , Sm i th’ s w ai verw as i nval i d beca us e, once the i nf or m at i on w as f

i l ed, 1 1 Sm i th coul d have be en exe cut ed pur s uantt o thati nf or m at i on, s ubj ectonl y t o the 1 2 g o v e rn me n t ’ s a b i l i ty t o p r o v e th e f a c ta u th o r i z i n g th e d e a th p e n a l ty – h a r m t o th e v i c t i m – 1 3 a t trial. 1 4 S in c e S m ith , h o w e v e r, th e law g o v e rn in g c a p ital p u n ish m e n t h a s ra d ica lly 1 5 change d. Fi r s t , i n Fur m an v. G eor gi a, 408 U
. S. 238 ( 1972) , the Supr eme C our thel d that 1 6 the r egi m e of

di s cr et i onary capi t al puni s hm entthatappl i ed w hen Sm i th w as deci ded w as 1 7 uncons t i tut i onal , and i n G r egg v. G eor gi a, 428 U
. S. 153 ( 1976) , the courtappr oved 1 8 m odern capi t al puni s hm ents t atut es thatr equi r ed f i ndi ngs of

part i cul araggr avat i ng 1 9 ci r cumst ance s bef or e a j ury coul d i m pos e a de ath penal ty. Second, i n A ppr endi v. N ew 2 0 J er s ey, the Supr eme C our thel d t hatunderthe Si xth A m endment , any f actotherthan the 2 1 fac t of a p ri o r co n v ict ion that incre ase s a d efe n d an t’ s sen tenc e b ey o n d the s tatu tory8 1 maxi mum mus tbe s ub mi tt e d t o the j ury a nd pr ov e d b e yo nd a r e a s on a bl e do ub t . 53 0 U. S. 2 466, 489 ( 490) ( 2000)
. T w o year s l at er , i n R i ng v. A r i zona, the Supr eme C our tcl ar i f i ed 3 th a t an a g g ra v a tin g fa c to r n e c e ss a ry u n d e r A riz o n a law to im p o se th e d e a th p e n a lty m u st, 4 underA ppr endi , be f ound by t he j ury and notthe s ent enci ng j udge. 536 U
. S. 584, 609 5 (2 0 0 2 ). 6 A lth o u g h A p p re n d i an d R in g d id n o t ad d re ss th e F ifth A m e n d m e n t, w e h a v e h e ld 7 thatthe l ogi c of

thos e ca s es r equi r es thats t atut ory aggr avat i ng f act or s be al l eged i n the 8 in d ictm e n t in c a p ital c a se s. U n ited S tate s v . F e ll, 5 3 1 F .3 d 1 9 7 , 2 3 7 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 8 ); 9 U ni t ed St at es v. Q ui nones , 313 F. 3d 49, 53 n. 1 ( 2d C i r . 2002)
. M or eover , f eder al 1 0 s ent enci ng s t atut es author i ze the i m pos i t i on of capi t al puni s hm entonl y w hen the 1 1 p ro se c u to r tim e ly files a n o tice sp e c ify in g th e a g g ra v a tin g fa c to rs ju stify in g th e d e a th 1 2 p en alty . 1 8 U
. S
. C
. § 3 5 9 3 (a). 1 3 W hen Sm i th w as char ged w i th ki dnapi ng, bef or e A ppr endi , he coul d have be en put 1 4 to d e a th u n d e r th e c h a rg in g in stru m e n t to w h ich h e p lea d e d . In th e w a k e o f A p p re n d i, 1 5 R i ng, and Q ui nones , how ever , the dea th penal ty m ay notbe i m pos ed unl es s the cha r gi ng 1 6 i ns trum ents peci f i es aggr avat i ng ci r cumst ance s j us t i f yi ng capi t al puni s hm ent . I n or der 1 7 f ora per s on t o be “he l d t o ans w erf ora capi t al
. . . cr i m e” unde rthe Fi f th A m endment , t he 1 8 char gi ng i ns trum entm us texpos e hi m t o capi t al puni s hm ent . T he Fi f th A m endment , as 1 9 i nt erpr et ed i n Sm i th, guar ant ees an unw ai vabl e r i ghtt o i ndi ctm entby gr and j ury notw hen 2 0 the s t atut e cr eat i ng the of f ens e author i zes capi t al puni s hm enti n s om e ci r cumst ance s , but 2 1 w h e n th e c h a rg in g in s tru m e n t h o ld s th e d e fe n d a n t to a n s w e r f o r a c a p ita l c ri m e . A1 M atth ew s’s a sserti o n that U n it ed S tat es v . P ay n e, 59 1 F
. 3 d 4 6 (2d C ir
. 2 0 1 0 ), 1 2 compel s a di f

f er entr es ul ti s s i m i l ar l y w i thoutm er i t . I n Payne, thi s C our tconcl uded that , f or 3 the p urposes of the indefinit e li m i t at i on s peri od provided b y 1 8 U
. S
. C
. § 3 28 1, an o ff ense 4 i s “puni s habl e by dea th” w hen the s t atut e “author i zes death as a puni s hm ent , ” r egar dl es s of 5 w h e th e r th e p a rticu lar d e fe n d a n t is d e a th e lig ib le. Id . at 5 9 . P a y n e , h o w e v e r, ad d re ss e d o n ly 6 the q u esti o n o f “w h ethe r an o ffen se is ‘pu n isha b le by d ea th’ w i thi n the m eani ng of § 3281 .” 7 I d. at58- 59 ( emphasi s a dded)
. T her ef or e, i t s hol di ng i s notcontr ol l i ng i n thi s cas e, w hi ch 8 d ea ls o n ly w ith the G ran d Ju ry C laus e a n d F ed era l R u le of C ri m inal P roc ed u re 7 (a)(1). 9 Fur therm or e, Payne r es t ed, i n part , on the pr act i cal di f f i cul t i es w i th “aw ai t [ i ng] t he 1 0 concl us i on of

the evi dence t o det erm i ne w hetherthe ac cus ed i s bei ng pros ecut ed f ora capi t al 1 1 of

f ens e. ” I d. at58, quot i ng Sm i th, 360 U
. S. at8. D et erm i ni ng the appr opr i at e l i m i t at i ons 1 2 per i od m usto ccurbef or e a va l i d char gi ng i ns trum entcan be cr eat ed and, ther ef or e, 1 3 i m pl i cat es pr act i cal cons i der at i ons as f ar - r eac hi ng as w hen t o ceas e an i nves t i gat i on, w hi ch 1 4 def

endant s can be char ged, and w hatcr i m es can be pr os ecut ed. N one of thes e pr act i cal 1 5 conce rns ar e i m pl i cat ed w hen det erm i ni ng w hethera part i cul ardef endantcan w ai ve 1 6 prosecuti on by i nd ict m en t, a decis i on i m pli cat i ng on l y the pl ea bargaini ng process. 1 7 T her ef

or e, M atthew s ’ s r el i ance on Payne i s unper s uas i ve. 9 1 char gi ng i ns trum entthatal l eges no aggr avat i ng el ement s author i zi ng capi t al puni s hm ent 2 does notdo s o. 1 3 W e th u s l o o k t o th e c h a r g i n g i n s tru me n tt o wh i c h M a t th e ws p l e a d e d
. M a t th e ws 4 pl eade d gui l ty t o an i nf or m at i on char gi ng hi m w i th drug- r el at ed murde ri n vi ol at i on of 21 5 U
. S. C
. § 848( e) ( 1) ( A )
. I n or derf ora drug- r el at ed murde rt o be puni s habl e by dea th, t he 6 g o v e rn m e n t m u s t s h o w o n e o r m o re a g g ra v a tin g fa c to rs s e t f o rt h in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 9 2 (c ). 7 W hi l e the ea r l i ers uper s edi ng i ndi ctm entof M atthew s di d s etf

or th s uch aggr avat i ng 8 f act or s , thus expos i ng hi m t o t he r i s k of capi t al puni s hm ent , the i nf or m at i on t o w hi ch 9 M at thew s ul t i m at el y p l eaded did not. T he inf orm at i on , theref

ore, did not expo se 1 0 M atthew s t o capi t al puni s hm ent . I ndeed, as the pl ea a gr eementm akes cl ear , thatw as t he 1 1 ent i r e poi ntof

the s uper s edi ng i nf

or m at i on, and of

M atthew s ’ s pl ea: the pr i nci pal10 1 conce s s i on of

f er ed t o M atthew s i n cons i der at i on f orhi s gui l ty pl ea w as r el i ef f r om the 2 r i s k of

a dea th s ent ence . Si nce the of f ens e cha r ged i n the i nf

or m at i on di d notchar ge 3 M atthew s w i th a capi t al cr i m e, orexpos e hi m t o a r i s k of exec ut i on, he w as f

ul l y ent i t l ed 4 to w a iv e h is rig h t to b e c h a rg e d b y g ra n d ju ry in d ictm e n t. A s M a tth e w s d o e s n o t d isp u te 5 thathi s w ai verw as vol unt ary, know i ng, and i nt el l i gent , the w ai verw as ef f ect i ve, the 6 in fo rm a tio n w a s p ro p e rly filed , an d M a tth e w s’s p lea , co n v ictio n , an d se n ten c e a re v a lid 7 a n d b in d in g . 8 CO NC L US I ON 9 F o rth e f

o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , th e j u d g me n to f th e d i s tr i c tc o u r ti s AF F I RMED
.