2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 2-25-2009 

# U S A v . L a b el l a 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 . 07-3061

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou 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 a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du . Re c omme nde d C it a t ion
" U SA v . L a be l l a " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1821. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1821Honora ble Alan D. L ourie, United States Circuit Judge f or the F eder al Circuit, sitti ng * by desig nation. NOT PRECEDENTIAL

U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F O R T H E T H IRD C IR C U IT

_________ Nos. 07-2894 / 07-3061

_________ UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,

v. ROBERT MONT ANI , Appellant in 07-2894 TONI NO LAB EL LA, Appellant in 07-3061

___________________ Appea l from the United States District Court for the D istrict of NewJ erse y Nos. 05-cr -00087-1 / 05-c r-00087- 2 (District Judge: The Honora ble Will iam J . Martini)

___________________ Submit ted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

Fe bruar y 5, 2009 Be fore : McKEE, JORDAN, and L OURI E , Circuit Judges . * (F iled: Febr

uary 25, 2009)2 OPI NI ONOF TH E CO UR T McKe e, Circuit J udg e, In this joi nt prosecution, Robert Montani a nd Tonino L abella both a ppeal the se ntence that was imposed af

ter they pled guilty

to conspirac y

to commit securities and wire fra ud and re late d o ff

e ns e s. F or

the re a so ns that f

oll ow , w e wi ll a ff

ir m. I. As we write primar ily

for the pa

rties who ar e fa

miliar with this case, a de tailed discussion of the fa c tua l and

pr oc e dura l hi sto ry

is n ot n e c e ssa

ry . M ontani e xec ute d a

ple a a g re e me nt i n which he “ voluntarily

waive[d] . . . the right to file a ny appea l . . . which cha lleng es the sente nce imposed by

the sentenc ing c ourt if that sentenc e fa lls withi n or below the Guidelines ra ng e that re su lts fr om t

he a g re e d to ta l Guid e lin e s o ff e ns e le ve l of

20 .” Ne ve rt

he le ss, Mo nta

ni n owa pp e a ls the re stitut ion that was imposed, claimingthat it was not proper ly calc ulated. Our

revie w of the va lid ity and a pp lic atio n o f a

n a pp e llate wa ive r i s de novo . United States v. Khattak, 273 F.3d 557, 560 (3d Cir. 2001). Signif ic antl y , M ontani d oe s n ot a rgue that hi s w a ive r w a s unk no wi ngor

inv olu nta ry a s is require d for us to ig nore a n appellate waiver

under Khattak . Id . at 563. Instead, he argues that the appe llate waive r does not extend to restitution because it is notpart of his “ sentenc e.” T he argume nt i s n ot o nly

me ri tle ss, it i s f

ri vo lou s. We h ave pr e vio us ly he ld t hat “ re sti tut ion

is a component of a

criminal sentenc e.” United States v. Pe rez 514 F.3d 296, 298 ( 3d Cir. 2007). See also, United States v . Leahy 438 F.3d 328, 333- 35 (3d Cir. 2006) (holdingthat restitution3

order ed as pa

rt of a c riminal sentence is a criminal pena lty), cert. de nied, 549 U.S. 1071 (2006). In Perez , th e de fe nd ant a lso argue d th at th e a pp e llate wa ive r i n h is p le a a g re e me nt d id n ot a

pp ly to r e sti tut ion . In r e

je c tin gthat argume nt, we e xpla ine d: “ [b]y wa ivi nghis ri ght t o a

pp e a l hi s criminal sentenc e, Pere z waived his rig ht to appeal the r estitution order.” 514 F .3d at 299. II. L a be lla ’s a pp e a l is e ve n le ss m e ri tor iou s. He argue s th at hi s a pp e llate wa ive r i s n ot v a lid and its enfor ceme nt would work a misca rriag e of justice be cause the sentenc ing judg e overstated the le ng th o f t

he se nte nc e he c ou ld r e c e ive . H e re lie s o n th e fa c t th at th e se nte nc ingjud g e a s w e ll as his own attorne y

informed him that the statutory maxi mum penalty

for the c rimes he wa s pleadingguilty

to was 25 year s, while in rea lity he fa ced a

combined maximum of only ten year s. He doe s not, however , explain how that mis statement could possibly void his guilty

plea. I f the maxi mum sentence had bee n understate d, there may have be en an a

rgument that his plea wa s not knowing ly

enter ed. That didn’t happen. Ad din gto t

he fr ivo lity

of his c la im i s th e fa c t th at du ri nghis se nte nc inghe ari ng , b oth L abella a nd his attorney

repe atedly

indicated that a ll parties wer e in agree ment that the maxim um combined sente nce w as ten year s, and not 25 as pre viously stated. A def endant may

withdraw a

guilty plea a fter it has be en ac cepte d and bef ore a sentenc e has bee n imposed “if the de fenda nt can show a

fair a nd just reason for

reque sting the withdrawa l.” Fe d. R. Crim. P . 11(d)( 2)(B ). Se eals o , United States v. W ilson , 429 F.3d 455, 458 (3 d Ci r. 20 05 ). Thus , e ve n a ssumin gthat th e e rr on e ou s in fo rm atio n c ou ld s ome ho w i nv a lid ate his plea, L abella still had ample oppor tunity to withdraw his guilty

plea be fore he wa s sentence d. Since the wa iver that L abella a g ree d to is enforc eable , his remainingarguments reg arding4

sentenc ing e rror

by the district court a

re w aived, a

nd need not be considere d. We a lso de c lin e to consider L abella’ s claim of inef fec tive assistance of counse l as such cla ims should ordinarily be raised in a

collater al proc eedingunder 28 U .S.C. § 2255. Un ite d S tates v . O liv ia , 46 F.3d 320, 325 (3d Cir. 1995). III. F or a ll o f t he a bo ve re a so ns , w e wi ll a ff ir m th e or de rs of

thejud g me nt o f s e nte nc e in b oth case s.