## NOT RECOMMENDED F OR P UBLICATION
File Na me: 13a0251n.06

No. 11-2586

UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS

F OR THE S IXTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STAT ES O F AMERICA,

P laintif f-App ellee,

v.

TERRENCE TYLE R,

Defendan t-Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P EAL FROM THE U NI TED

STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DI STRI CT OF MI CHI GAN

BEFORE: MERRITT, CLAY, and GRIF F IN, Circ uit Jud ges.

MERRITT, Circuit Ju dge. Terr ence Ty ler was sentenc ed to 262 months’ imprisonment

afte r pleading g uilty to one count of conspiring to possess coca ine with intent to distribute. He

appea ls the sentenc e, arg uing that it was proce durally unrea sonable beca use two of the di s t ri ct

court’s calc ulations viola

te d his plea ag ree ment. Be cause Ty ler waived his appea l rig hts and beca use

the waive r applies in this circumstanc e, we dismiss

.

Be fore the prese ntence repor t was compiled, Ty ler signe d a plea ag reement setting a

sentenc ing rang e of 210–262 months. The ag ree ment stipulated that the sentenc ing rang e would be

adjusted upwa

rd if the pr esente nce r eport re veale d (and the district court found) additional crimes

to support a highe r criminal history cate g ory

. The re cord of the arr aig nment shows that Ty ler

## No. 11-2586

United States v. Tyler

understood the ag ree ment and that it was voluntary

. He does not challeng e the voluntariness of the

plea on a ppeal.

The plea ag ree ment used a set of worksheets t o calc ulate a criminal hi story cate g ory of VI

based on eig ht ee n cr iminal history points. Six criminal history points stemmed from two drug

traff icking char g es, and six more ste m m ed from two counter feiting char g es. The plea ag ree ment

also listed, but assig ned no points to, a conviction for manufac ture of heroin. The d i s t ri ct court’s

application of additional points for the heroin conviction provides the basis for Ty ler’s first

arg ument. Additionally

, the plea ag ree ment forba de application of the car eer -off ender g uideline,

U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. The prese ntence repor t a pplied it, howeve r, rec ommending a sentenc ing rang e 1



## of 262–327 months. The district court imposed a sentenc e of 262 months, which was at the bottom

of the car eer -off

ender rang e and the top of the plea- ag ree ment rang e. The district c ourt’s appar ent

relianc e on the c are er- offe nder g uideline provides the ba sis for Ty ler’s se cond ar g ument. 2

T h e p l e a a g r e e m e n t p r o v i d e d t h a t “ i f t h e C o u r t f i n d s t h a t d e f

e n d a n t i s a c a r e e r o f

f e n d e r , a n a r m e d c a r e e r 1

c r i m i n a l

, o r a r e p e a t a n d d a n g e r o u s s e x o f f e n d e r a s d e f

i n e d u n d e r t h e s e n t e n c i n g g u i d e l i n e s o r o t h e r f e d e r a l l a w , a n d t h a t

f i n d i n g i s n o t a l r e a d y r e f l e c t e d i n t h e a t t a c h e d w o r k s h e e t s , t h i s p a r a g r a p h d o e s n o t a u t h o r i z e a c o r r e s p o n d i n g i n c r e a s e
i n t h e a g r e e d r a n g e

. ” R

. 7 0

, R u l e 1 1 P l e a A g r e e m e n t a t 4

.

T h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e x p l a i n e d t h e s e n t e n c e a s f o l l o w s : 2

M r

. T y l e r , t h e C o u r t h a s r e v i e w e d y o u r f i l e , t h e p r e s e n t e n c e r e p o r t

, t h e R u l e 1 1 P l e a
A g r e e m e n t a n d I f

i n d t h e f a c t s s e t o u t i n t h e p r e s e n t e n c e r e p o r t a n d u s e d i n t h e

c a l c u l a t i o n o f t h e o f

f e n s e l e v e l a n d t h e c r i m i n a l h i s t o r y c a t e g o r y a r e a c c u r a t e a n d

t h a t t h e c a l c u l a t i o n i t s e l f i n t h e s e n t e n c i n g g u i d e l i n e r a n g e i s a c c u r a t e

. S o m e o f t h a t

r e p e a t s w h a t I s a i d e a r l i e r b u t t h a t i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h a c r i m i n a l h i s t o r y c a t e g o r y o f

s i x a n d a n o f

f e n s e l e v e l o f 3 4 w h i c h r e d u c e s t h e g u i d e l i n e r a n g e o f 2 6 2 t o 3 2 7

. F o l l o w i n g t h e R u l e 1 1 P l e a A g r e e m e n t w e a r e t o g e t h e r o n l y o n t h e m i d d l e f i g u r e

o f 2 6 2

. S e n t e n c i n g H r ’ g a t 1 5

.



## -2-

## No. 11-2586

United States v. Tyler

We beg in by

addre ssing the g overnme nt’s contention that Ty ler’s appea l is waived. I n the

plea ag ree ment, which the district court acc epted, Ty ler waived “any rig ht” to appea l if the sentenc e

did not exceed 262 months. We have consistently enfor ced s u ch ap p eal waiver s wher e they are 3



## made knowing ly and voluntarily

. See

, e. g

. , Un i t ed States v. Toth

, 668 F.3d 374 (6th Cir. 2012);

United States v. McG ilvery

, 403 F.3d 361 (6th Cir. 2005); United States v. Calderon

, 388 F.3d 197

(6th Cir. 2004).

Ty ler’s 262 m o nth sentenc e confor med to the written ag ree ment. This fac t does not

nece ssarily require dismiss al

, h oweve r, beca use at Ty ler’s arr aig nment the parties called the

ag ree ment as written into question. Ty ler objected that his criminal history cate g ory should actua lly

have been a V, and his sentenc ing rang e thus reduc ed to 188–235 months, beca use in rea lity he had

a single drug traff

icking char g e and a single counter fei t i ng char g e, not two of eac h as the plea

ag ree ment proposed. The g overnme nt responde d that “[i] n the event

. . . that his criminal history is

lower, resulting in a lower g uideline calc ulation, the Gover nment would ag ree that that is the ag ree d

upon cal cu l at i o n for the purposes of the Rule 11 Ag ree ment.” R. 83, Plea Hr’g at 17. Ty ler

indicated his understanding of this chang e. This colloquy established that if the prese ntence repor t

produce d a lower sentenc ing rang e by virt ue of a lower criminal history cate g ory , then the plea

ag ree ment would permit appe al from a sentenc e of 262 months.

T h e p l e a a g r e e m e n t p r o v i d e d t h a t i f “ t h e s e n t e n c e i m p o s e d d o e s n o t e x c e e d t h e m a x i m u m a l l o w e d b y P a r t 3 3

o f t h i s a g r e e m e n t

, d e f e n d a n t w a i v e s a n y r i g h t h e h a s t o a p p e a l h i s c o n v i c t i o n o r s e n t e n c e

. ” R

. 7 0

, R u l e 1 1 P l e a
A g r e e m e n t a t 7

. P a r t 3 s t i p u l a t e d t h a t “ t h e s e n t e n c e o f i m p r i s o n m e n t i n t h i s c a s e m a y n o t e x c e e d t h e t o p o f t h e

s e n t e n c i n g g u i d e l i n e r a n g e a s d e t e r m i n e d b y P a r a g r a p h 2 B

. ” I d

. a t 5

– 6

. I n t u r n , P a r a g r a p h 2 B s t a t e d t h a t t h e s e n t e n c i n g

r a n g e m u s t b e 2 1 0

– 2 6 2 m o n t h s

.



## -3-

## No. 11-2586

United States v. Tyler

The prese ntence repor

t, howeve r, y ielded a crimina l h istory cate g ory of VI

, the same criminal

history cate g ory upon which the r ang e in the wr itten ag ree ment was based. Ty ler wa s corr ect that

his traff icking and counter feiting convictions had been miscounted—resulting in a reduc tion of the

criminal history cate g ory to V —but he had neg lected to disc lose convictions for false cer tification

of driving documents. These convictions, combined with other adjustments, broug ht him to six teen

criminal history points and back into a criminal history cate g ory of VI

. Addition of these points was 4



## permitted in the written plea ag ree ment, which anticipated an upwar d adjustment of the sentenc ing

rang e if the ag ree ment did not corr ectly calc ulate criminal history

. Given that the prese ntence repor t

and the written ag ree ment rea ched the same criminal history cate g ory , 262 mont hs rema ined the

threshold sentenc e for

waiver

.

Ty ler stresses that we must acc ount fo r the incre ase in his total offe nse level due to

application o f the car eer -off ender g uideline. The prese ntence repor t initially calc ulated a total

offe nse level of 31, then raised that to 34 as the car eer -off ender g uideline instructs. The result was

to increa se Ty ler’s se ntencing rang e fr om 188–235 months t o 262–327 months. Ty ler arg ues t hat

the part of t he plea ag ree ment forbidding application of the caree r-of fende r guideli n e entitl es hi m

to be sentenc ed within the lower rang e.

There are two p ro b l em s wi th this arg ument. The first is that the ag ree ment conditioned

Ty ler’s rig ht to appea l on imposit ion of a sentenc e in ex ce s s o f 2 6 2 months. The district court’s

T h e p r e s e n t e n c e r e p o r t i n c l u d e d t h r e e c r i m i n a l h i s t o r y p o i n t s f o r t h e h e r o i n c o n v i c t i o n

. T y l e r a r g u e s t h a t u s e 4

o f t h e s e p o i n t s c o n t r a d i c t e d t h e p l e a a g r e e m e n t

, w h i c h a s s i g n e d n o p o i n t s t o t h e h e r o i n c o n v i c t i o n

. M a y b e s o , m a y b e

n o t

, b u t a n y e r r o r i s h a r m l e s s

. B e c a u s e t h i r t e e n c r i m i n a l h i s t o r y p o i n t s e s t a b l i s h a c r i m i n a l h i s t o r y c a t e g o r y o f V I

, T y l e r

w o u l d h a v e h a d a V I e v e n w i t h o u t t h e t h r e e p o i n t s f o r t h e h e r o i n c o n v i c t i o n

.



## -4-

## No. 11-2586

United States v. Tyler

consideration of t he care er- offe nder guide line does not neg ate that condition. E v en as suming the

district court committed err or by considerin g t h e car eer -off ender provision, Ty ler ag ree d not to

appea l that err or if his sentenc e did not exceed 262 months. See United States v. Arias

, 321 F. App’x

439, 442 (6th Cir. 2009) (upublished).

The second problem is that the oral modification to the plea- ag ree ment rang e was conting ent

upon a reduc tion of Ty ler’s criminal history cate g ory

. The total offe nse level had nothing to do with

it. Though a t sentencing he asse rted that he would not ha ve pled if he knew the court would use a

highe r total offe nse level than stated in the plea- ag ree ment workshee ts, Ty ler neve r at tempted to

withdraw his plea. Nor did he object when the district court announce d the sentenc e. I n short, Ty ler

ag ree d that he would be sentenc ed within a cer tain rang e, not that a particula r total offe ns e l ev el

would be used to c alculate that rang e.

Ty ler was sentenc ed within the rang e he knowing ly barg ained for

, s o h i s appea l waiver

applies. Acc ording ly , the appe al is dismis sed.

5

W e r e c o g n i z e t h a t a m o t i o n s p a n e l p r e v i o u s l y d e n i e d t h e g o v e r n m e n t ’ s m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s b a s e d o n t h e a p p e a l 5

w a i v e r i n t h e p l e a a g r e e m e n t

. H o w e v e r , t h a t p a n e l d i d n o t h a v e t h e b e n e f i t o f a f u l l m e r i t s b r i e f

i n g

. U p o n r e v i e w o f t h i s

a d d i t i o n a l b r i e f

i n g , t h e a p p l i c a b i l i t y o f t h e a p p e a l w a i v e r b e c o m e s e v i d e n t

.



## -5-