The Honor able Ge org e Cara m Steeh, United States District J udg e for the Easter

n District of * Michig an, sitting by

desig nation. 

### NOT RE COM M E NDE D F OR F UL L - T E X T P UB L I CAT I ON

F i l e N am e : 14a0771n . 06 N o. 12- 6485 U N I TED STA TES C O U R T O F A PPEA LS F O R T H E S IX T H C IR C U IT

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee , v . J UDY L . DI

NSMORE, De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL FRO M THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO UR T F OR

TH E EA STE RN DI STRI CT OF TEN

NESSEE

BEFORE: M OORE an d COOK, Circ uit Jud ges; and ST EEH, Dis tric t Judge. * STE EH, District Judge. Despite a waiver in her plea agr eeme nt, Defe ndant J udy Dinsmore appea ls th e 3 0 -m onth sentence imposed following he r plea of guilty to embezzl ing, ste aling , and

conver ting money

of the Social Sec urity

Administration. Di n smore’s plea ag ree ment waived he r rig ht to appeal he r convic tion or sentence , unless the district c ourt imposed “a sentenc e . . . above the se ntencing g uid e lin e ra ng e or any a pp lic a ble mand a tor

y min imum se nte nc e (whic he ve r i s g reater) de termined by

the di strict court.” The gove rnment m oves t o dismiss the appeal arg uing that the district court sente nced D insmore within the Guideline rang e. Dinsmore ar g ues that the a ppeal waiver does not bar he r appeal because the district court depa rted upwa

rd pursua nt to U.S.S .G.2

§ 4A1.3 resulting i n a sente nce a bove the Guide line rang e. B eca use Dinsmore’ s appea l is precluded by he r a pp e a l w a ive r, we dis mis s. I. A. Dinsmore wa s relate d by

marria g e to Debbie Roberts. Roberts was born on O ctober 8, 1908 and died on Oc tober 5, 1982

. Duringher life time, Roberts lived with Dinsmore and Dinsmore ’s hu sb and a t 71 1 L on gbe nd Roa d, Rog e rs vil le , Te nn e sse e . Rob e rt s re c e ive d Sup ple me nta l Se c ur ity I ncome ( SSI ) fr om the Social Security Administration (SS A). Af te r Ro b e rts d ie d , th e SS A c o n ti nu e d ma il in g h e r SS I c h e c k s to D in s mo r e ’ s home. The SSA was never

notified that Roberts died. F rom Novembe r 1, 1982 until November 1, 2011, the SSA sent 347 S SIchec ks to Dinsmor e’ s home in Roberts’s name , intended for Roberts’s use. Di ns mor e c a sh e d a ll 3 47 c he c ks a t the Gr e e ne F arm e rs Co- Op in Gr e e ne vil le , Te nn e sse e . Ea c h ti me the S SA mailed a chec k to Roberts, Dinsmore af fix ed Roberts’s sig nature to the back of the che ck, drove to Gr eene Fa

rmers Co-O p, identified her self as Rober ts and ca shed the c heck. I n J un e of 20 11 , the Gr e e ne vil le Soc ia l Sec ur ity Of fi c e be g an an inv e sti g a tio n as part of its Centenar ian Project, re alizing that Rober t s would be 103-y ear s-old if she we re still alive. The inv e sti g a tio n unc ov e re d th a t Ro be rt s w a s in fa c t de c e a se d a

nd that D ins mor e wa s c a sh inghe r S SI

c h e c k s . D i n s m o r e a dm i t t e d t o i n v e s t i g a t i n g a g e n t s th a ts h e l i v e d w i thh e r d a u g h t e r i nM i dw ay, Te nn e sse e , b ut ma int a ine d th e re sid e nc e in R og e rs vil le in o rd e r t o c on tin ue to r e c e ive Rob e rt s’ s SSI

c he c ks

. On

Janu ary 10 , 2 01 2, the g ra

nd jur y re tur ne d a o ne -c ount i nd ic tme nt c ha rg ingDi ns mor e wi th knowing ly

embezzli ng , stealing and conver ting to he r own use SSI benef its to which she knew she was not entitled, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641. Dinsmore entered into a plea ag ree ment with theWhil e Dinsmore w as aw aiting se ntencing , in J uly of 2012, she wa s convicted in state c ourt for 1 driving under the influence and lea ving the scene of an a ccide nt. I n addition, in October of 20 03 , D ins mor e ple a de d guil ty in f e de ra l c ourt

to m akin g fa lse state me nts and re pr e se ntatio ns to the SSA in connection with SSI benef its. 3 g ov e rnme nt. Di ns mor e a dmi tte d to vio latin g 18 U. S.C. § 6 41 and sti pu late d that the amou nt o f l os s was $167,486.00. As pa

rt of her plea ag ree ment, Dinsmore agr eed to wa ive any direc t appea l of her

c on vic tio n o r s e nte nc e . T he a pp e a l w a ive r s tate s: I n consideration of the conc essions made by the United States in this agr eeme nt and as a f urther de monstr at i o n o f t he def endant’ s acc eptanc e of r esponsibility for the offe nse committed, the def endant a g ree s not to file a direc t appea l of the def endant’ s convic t ion or sentenc e except the de fenda nt retains the r ight to appe al a se ntence imposed ab o ve the se ntencingg uideline ra ng e or a ny applicable mandatory min imum se nte nc e (whic he ve r i s g re a te r) de te rm ine d b y the dis tr ic t c ourt
. A pre sentenc e investig ation rep o rt was pre pare d by the probation office. T he pre sentenc e repor t provided for a b ase offense level of 6 a nd a criminal hist ory

cate g ory of I I I

. Ba sed on the

1 amount of loss, the offe nse level wa s increa sed by 10 levels. In addition, 3 levels wer e subtrac ted for Dinsmore ’s ac cepta

nce of responsibility

and assistanc e to authorities, for a total offe nse leve l of 13. The pr esente nce r eport c oncluded that Dinsmore ’s maxim um term o f i m p ri sonment under 18 U.S.C. § 641 was 10 y ear s and the advisory Guideline ra ng e wa s 18 to 24 months. Dins more a nd the g overnme nt both filed notices stating that there wer e no objec tions to t he pre sentenc e re port. Prior to sentencing , the g overnme nt filed a sentenc ing memorandum asking the district court to c on sid e r a

thr e e -l e ve l up wa

rd de pa rt ur e un de r U .S. S.G . § 4A 1. 3 o r a vari anc e un de r 1 8 U .S. C. § 3 55 3( b) . In s up po rt

of the re qu e st, the g ov e rnme nt c ite d D ins more ’s c on vic tio n f or fr a ud in October of 2003, duringwhich time she wa s continuing t o ca s h Roberts’s SSIchec ks, arisingout of similar conduc t as the conduc t char ged i n t h e indictment. I n the pre vious case, D insmore was4

cashingSSI chec ks sent to Stella Rober ts, a nother dece ased relative. The g overnme nt argued that Di ns mor e ’s c ri min a l hi sto ry did no t a de qu a te ly

re pr e se nt h e r p a st c ri me s. Dinsmore fil ed a se ntencing memorandum see king a

sentenc e of 18 months. Dinsmore’ s sentenc ing me morandum did not addre ss the g overnme nt’s reque st for a th re e-le vel upwar d depar ture or va rianc e. At sentenc ing, the district court dete rmined that the a pplicable Guide line rang e for Dinsmore’s of

fense was 18 to 24 months, a nd that the statutory maxi mum wa s 10 y ear s. The district

c o u rt, h o w e v e r , f

o u n d th a t t h is r an g e d id

n o t a p p r o p r iate ly

r e p r e s e n t D in s mo r e ’ s c r im in a l history and her likelihood of rec idivism . The district cour t expl ained that Dinsmore commit ted bot h a thef t and for g ery

offe nse ea ch time she unlaw fully cashe d a SSIchec k amounting t o o v er 700 c riminal offe nses that were never prosecuted. Moreover , the district court re asoned that Dinsmore’s conduc t during pretria l supervision shows that she i s likely to commit another offe nse. There fore , the district

c ourt inc re a se d the ba se of

fe ns e le ve l by

tw o le ve ls, to 1 5, re a c hin g a ne w Guid e lin e ra

ng e of 24 to 30 months

. Af te r c on sid e ri ngthe 18 U.S.C . § 35 53 fa c tor s, the dis tr ic t c ourt se nte nc e d D ins mor e to 30 months’ imprisonment. The district court assesse d $167,486.00 in restitution and a t h re e-y ear term of supe rvised re lease . Dinsmore, throug h her attorney , objected to the upw ard de parture
. B. Dinsmore appe aled to this court cha lleng ing he r sentenc e. Dinsmore’ s attorney filed a br ief under An de rs v . Ca lif

or nia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), conc luding t h at h er appea l did not present any meritorious issues beca

use t he plea ag ree ment waived any rig ht to direc tly appea l the di strict court’s sentenc e. Dinsmore’s attorney contempora neously filed a motion to withdraw as counsel. Finding5

the A nd e rs b ri ef inadequate , the cour t denied the motion to withdraw a nd direc ted Dinsmore’ s attorney to submit a mer its brief or a n adequate An de rs brief. Sub se qu e ntl y , th e g ov e rnme nt f ile d a mot ion to d ism iss arguin g that th e wa ive r i n Dinsmore’s plea

ag ree ment prec luded her from filing a direc t a ppeal. A motions pane l denied the motion without prejudice to r ec onsideration by the merits pane l. Dinsmore filed a reply to the g overnme nt’s motion arg uing that her dire ct appe al is permitted because the district court sente nced her a bove the a

pplicable Guide line rang e ef fec tively neg ating the appe al waive r. II. An a pp e a l w a ive r i n a

ple a a g re e me nt i s e nf

or c e a ble if the de fe nd ant’ s wa ive r of a pp e llate rig hts was done knowing ly and voluntarily

. Un ite d S tates v . To th , 668 F.3d 374, 377–78 ( 6th Cir. 20 12 ). Di ns mor e do e s n ot c ha lle ng e that she kn ow ing ly and vo luntari ly

wa ive d h e r a

pp e llate ri g hts

. And the motions panel re cog nized that “[t ]he recor d demonstrates that the district court complied with the require ments of Rule 11 in a cce pting the g uilty plea.” Where a defe ndant knowing ly and voluntarily

waives he r appe llate rig hts, we ca n enter tain challeng es only

to the validity

of the wa iver itself. Un ite d S

tates v . B e als , 698 F.3d 248, 255 (6th Cir. 2012). Dinsm ore a rgues that the a

ppeal waiver in her plea

ag ree ment with the g overnme nt doe s not ba r her direc t appea l beca

use the district court sente nced he r above the advis o ry Gu i d eline ra ng e. To de termine whe ther a claim ra ised on appea l falls within the sc ope of an appea l w aiver , we a pply a de novo r eview. Tot

h , 668 F.3d at 378. As explained, Dinsmore wa ived any direc t appea l of her c onviction or sentenc e unless the district court imposed a se ntence above the Guideline ra ng e or any applicable mandatory minimum sentenc e as “deter

mined by the di strict court.” Dinsmore arg ues t hat s he is not bound by the appe al waiver beca use the district cour

t’s upwar d depar

ture pursua

nt to U.S.S .G. § 4A1.3 cr eate s a sentenc eCompare United States v. G rams , 5 66 F .3 d 6 83 , 6 86 –8 7 ( 6th Cir . 2 00 9) (p e r c ur iam) 2 (explaining that a

Guidelines “de parture ” re sults in t he imposition of a sentenc e outside the advisory rang e), with Un ite d S

tates v . S mi th , 4 7 4 F

. 3 d

8 8 8 , 8 9 6 ( 6 thC i r . 2 0 0 7 ) ( G i b b o n s , J, concur ring ) (r easoningthat an upwa rd depa rture pur suant to U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3 ad jus ts the Guidelines ra

ng e re sulting in a ne w advisory Guideline ra

ng e), abrogated on other grounds , Ga ll v. United States , 552 U.S. 38 (2007). 6 that is gr eate r than the a dvisory Guideline ra

ng e. Appe llant Reply

Br . at 3–4. We reje ct Dinsmore’ s

argume nt. Assuming a

n upwar d depar

ture pursua

nt to U.S.S .G. § 4A1.3 re sults in an above-Guidelines

se nte nc e rathe r t

ha n a n a dju stm e nt to the a

pp ro pr iate Gu ide lin e s ra

ng e , a n iss ue we do no t a dd

re ss 2 in resolving this appeal, Dinsmore’s broad appea l w aiver prec ludes her f

rom cha lleng ing the district

c ourt ’s de te rm inatio n th a t th e a pp ro pr iate Gu ide lin e ra

ng e wa s 2 4 to 30 mo nt hs

. Th is r e su lt i s d i c t a t e d b y Be als , a ca se in which multipl e defenda nts pleaded guilty

and/or we re c onvicted of

manu fa c tur ingand

dis tr ibutin g me tha

mph e tamin e . 6 98 F .3 d at 25 4. On e of the de fe nd ants , Pame la Miller, pleade d g uilty

but later c halleng ed her sentenc e despite a n ap p ea l waiver in her plea ag ree ment. Id. at 255. Miller’s plea ag ree ment prec luded her from fi l ing a

direc t appea l of her convic t i on or sentenc e except that she r etained “ the rig ht to appeal a sentenc e imposed above the sentenc ing g uideline rang e as deter mined by the district court.” Id. On appeal, M iller argued that the district court misapplied the Guidelines. We held that Miller was pre cluded f rom cha lleng ing the district cour t ’s ap p l i cation of the Guidelines bec ause of the broa d appea l waiver in her plea ag ree ment. Id. We rea soned that the languag e in M i l l er ’s ap peal wa iver, whe n rea sonably rea d, de fe rr e d to the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s discretion in calculating the a ppropriate Guideline ra

ng e and permitted a c halleng e only if Miller’s sentenc e excee ded the top end of the ra ng e as calculated by the district court in its discretion

. Id. Be cause Miller’s s entenc e did not exceed the top end of the rang e the district court calculated , w e h e ld th a t M il le r ’ s a p p e a l w a iv e r p r e c lu d e d o ur revie w. Id.7

I n Be als , we c ited Un ite d S tates v . G iga nti , 405 F. App’x 31 (6th Cir. 2010), a case in whic h we he ld that a broa d appea l waiver that waived the rig ht to a ppeal any sentenc e “ ‘ within or below the g uideline ra

ng e as determine d by the Cou r t a t s entenc ing ’ ” pr eclude d “any challeng e to the district court’s Guidelines calc ulation.” Id. at 256 (e mphasis in origina l). In Gi ga nti , we c ompare d the waiver provisi on above to the w aiver provision in United States v. Mc Coy , 5 08 F .3 d 7 4, 78 (1 st Cir. 2007), which wa i v ed t h e right to appe al any sentenc e that fe ll “within the guide line rang e.” Although McCoy held that the appe al waiv er pr eser ved an a ppeal c halleng ing a

n alleg ed miscalculation of the Guidelines rang e, we distinguished the appe al waive r in McCoy from the one in Gi ga nti : The wa iver provision at issue in McCoy is very differ ent from the waiver provision a t is su e in G ig anti’s case . Gi ga nti ha s n ot m e re ly

wa ive d th e ri g ht t o a

pp e a l a se nte nc e wi thi n th e g uid e lin e s, he ha s w a ive d the ri g ht to a pp e a l a se nte nc e “ wi thi n or below the g uideline ra

ng e as determine d by the Court at sentencing . . . .” Eve n the McCoy court noted t h at s uch a w aiver provision could fore close a n appea l on the g r o u n d th a t t h e d is tr ic t c o u rt m is c a lc u late d th e g u id e li ne rang e. McCoy , 508 F.3d a t 7 8 n . 4

. [f

o o tn o te o mi tt e d ]. Gi ga nti , 405 F. App’ x at 37. He re , a ft e r a

pp lyingU. S.S. G. § 4 A1 .3 , th e dis tr ic t c ourt de te rm ine d th a t th e a

pp ro pr iate Gui del in e range wa s 2 4 to 30 months . D ins mor e wa s se nte nc e d to 30 months , a se nte nc e that is wi thi n th e Gu ide lin e ra

ng e c a lc ulate d b y

the dis tr ic t c ourt . E ve n if the di st ri ct court

inc or re c tly

rea ched the Guidelines ca lculation, Dinsmore’s a ppeal wa iver precludes he r fr om challeng ing it on appea l. Be als , 6 98 F .3 d at 25 6; Gi ga nti , 405 F. App’x at 37. She ag ree d not to appeal he r sentenc e if it w a s w ith in t

he Gu ide lin e ra

ng e a s de te rm ine d b

ythedis tri c t c ou rt . The a ppeal waiver, the re fo re , b ars he r a

pp e a l. Although this re sult may

be har sh (if in fac t the district court e rre d in its determination that 24 to 30 months was the corr ect Guidelines rang e), we “must g ive effec t to the i ntent of t he par ties8

as expressed by the plain lang uag e in the plea a g ree ment.” Be als , 698 F.3d at 256 (citation omitted). Had Dinsmore wished to prese rve he r r i gh t to appea l the district court’s de termination of the appropr i ate Guide lines rang e, she c ould have ba rg ained f or it at the time she ente red into a ple a ag ree ment with the g overnme nt. Id. at 255–56. For example, in U

n ite d S ta te s v . D e anda , 4 50 F. App’x 498 (6th Ci r. 2011), the d ef en d an t ’s plea a g ree ment waived the rig ht to appeal a sentenc e wi th in or be low

the a dv iso ry

Gu ide lin e ra

ng e “ e xce pt t

hat th e De fe nd ant m ay

a pp e a l on g ro un ds , prese rved at sentencing , that the Court i ncorrec tly determine d the guideline range .” Id. at 499 (empha sis added). In another case , United States v. Coke r , 514 F.3d 562, 573 ( 6th Cir. 2008), the defe ndant ag ree d to waive the r ight to appe al unless the cour t “depa rted upwards” f

rom the Guidelines. Dinsmore’ s appea l waiver does not contai n simil ar la ng uag e as that in Deanda or Coker . T he pla in l angua g e of Di ns mor e ’s ple a

a g re e me nt p re c lud e s h e r a pp e a l. III . For the re asons explained above, w e GRANT the g overnmen t ’s m o tion to dis miss and DI SMI SS D ins mor e ’s a

pp e a l.