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. 09- 1561 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. S U N N I A L I,

A ppel l ant

A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C r i m i nal A ct i on N o. 2- 07- cr - 00042- 002) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J ohn P. Ful l am Subm i tt ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J une 3, 2010 B efor e: A M B R O , C H A G A R E S, and V A N A N T W E R PE N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: J une 21, 2010)

OP I NI ON A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udge Sunni A l i appea l s hi s s ent ence of 32 y ear s ’ i m pr i s onm entforoffe ns es ar i s i ng out of hi s part i ci pat i on i n thr ee r obber i es . W e af fi rm the s ent ence . I.2

I n J anuary2005, A l i and co- defe ndantD avi d G r een c ons pi r ed t o r ob the Phi l adelphi a r es t aur antw her e A l i w as empl oy ed. A l i al ert ed G r een bycel l phone w hen h is m a n a g e r b e g a n o p e n in g th e re sta u ra n t’s s a f e ; G re e n th e n e n ter e d th e re sta u ra n t, br andi s hed a ha ndgun, and for ced the managert o open the s afe . G r een t ook app roxi m at el y$2 , 80 0 from the safe, w hich G reen and A l i divi ded betw een them sel ves. I n M ar ch 2005, G r een a nd A l i pl anned t o r ob the empl oy ees of the s ame r es t aur ant as theyw er e l eavi ng t o depos i tthe ni ght ’ s pr ocee ds i n the bank. A l i cal l ed G r een w hen the empl oy ees l eftthe r es t aur ant ; G r een then appr oache d the empl oy ees , br andi s hed a h a n d g u n , an d d e m a n d e d th e b a c kp a c k th e yw e re c a rry in g . T h e re w a s a p p ro x im a tely $ 3 ,5 0 0 in th e b a c kp a c k , w h ich G re e n a n d A li sp lit . In A p ril 2 0 0 5 , A li an d G re e n ro b b e d a n O ra n g e Ju liu s s to re in th e K in g o f P ru ss ia M all . A fter the store c lose d fo r th e e v en ing , A li an d G ree n en tered the b ac k o f th e sto re a n d , arm e d w ith h a n d g u n s, a c c o ste d a n e m p lo y e e w h o w a s c o u n tin g m o n e y . T h e ysp lit the appr oxi m at el y$900 theyt ook fr om the s t or e. I n J anuary2006, a fe der al gr and j uryr eturned an i ndi ctm entchar gi ng A l i w i th one countof cons pi r acyt o i nt er fer e w i th i nt er s t at e comm er ce byr obbery , i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 1951( a) ( C ountO ne) ; thr ee c ount s of i nt er fer ence w i th i nt er s t at e comm er ce by r obbery , al s o i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 1951( a) ( C ount s T w o, Four , and Si x) ; and thr ee co u n ts of u sing an dca rry ing (an d aidin g an d ab ett ing the u se a n d ca rry ing o f) a firearm dur i ng and i n r el at i on t o a cr i m e of vi ol ence , i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . §§ 2, 924( c) ( C ount s T hr ee, Fi ve, and Seven) . A l i fac ed a t ot al m andat orym i ni m um s ent ence of 57C o u n t T h ree ch arg ed A li w ith aidin g an d ab ett ing the b ran d ishing o f a firearm 1 dur i ng the J anuary2005 r obbery , and ca rr i ed a c ons ecut i ve mandat orym i ni m um s ent ence o f 7 y e a rs ’ i m p ri s o n m e n t. See 18 U . S. C . § 924( c) ( 1) ( A ) ( i i ) ( pr ovi di ng fora cons ecut i ve m andat orym i ni m um s ent ence of 7 y ear s ’ i m pr i s onm entforpos s es s i ng a fi r earm dur i ng and i n r el at i on t o a cr i m e of vi ol ence w her e the fi r earm i s br andi s hed) . C ount s Fi ve and S even each c arr i ed co nsecuti ve m and at orym i nim um sent ences o f 25 y ears ’ i m pri sonm ent, res ult i ng i n a tot al m and at orym i nim um sent ence o f 57 y ears ’ im p ri s o n m e n t. See i d. § 9 2 4 (c)(1)(C )(i ) (pro v iding fo r a c o n sec u ti v e m an d atory m i ni m um s ent ence of 25 y ear s ’ i m pr i s onm entfora s econd ors ubs equentconvi ct i on u n d e r § 9 2 4 (c )); s ee al

s o D eal v. U ni ted States , 508 U . S. 129, 131–34 ( 1993) ( § 924( c) ( 1) ( C ) ( i ) appl i es even i f the s econd ors ubs equentconvi ct i on i s fora count ch arg ed in the sam e ind ictm en t as th e initi al vio lat ion o f § 9 2 4 (c)). 3 y ears ’ i m pri sonm ent on the § 92 4 co un t s. 1 A li p le d g u ilty to th e s e o f f e n s e s in F e b ru a ry 2 0 0 8 p u rs u a n t to a p le a a g re e m e n t. D ur i ng the pl ea he ar i ng, the D i s tr i ctC ourtand the G overnm entr eci t ed the t ot al m andat orym i ni m um s ent ence A l i fac ed as a r es ul tof pl eadi ng gui l ty . T he G overnm ent a lso o u tli n e d th e ter m s o f th e a p p e llate w a iv e r in A li’s p lea a g re e m e n t, un d e r w h ich A li w ai ved hi s r i ght s t o appea l orcol l at er al l yatt ack hi s convi ct i on ors ent ence . A l i w as s ent ence d i n February2009. Pr i ort o s ent enci ng, the G overnm entm oved to d ism iss on e o f th e § 9 2 4 (c) co u n ts ( C o u n t Se v en ), thu s red u cing the to tal m an d atory m i nim um sent ence A l i faced t o 3 2 y ears ’ ( 38 4 m on ths’) i m pri sonm ent. W i th an off ense l evel of 22 and acr i m i nal hi s t orycat egoryof I V , A l i ’ s G ui del i ne r ange f orthe other count s of convi ct i on w as 68 t o 73 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm ent , r es ul t i ng i n a fi nal G ui del i ne ra n g e o f 4 5 2 to 4 5 7 m o n th s ’ i m p ri s o n m e n t. See U . S . S . G . § 5 G 1 . 2 (a). T h e D istric t C o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t a s e n ten c e w ith in th e G u id e lin e ra n g e “ w o u ld [be] . . . unr eas onabl yl ong, ” and s ent ence d A l i t o the mandat orym i ni m um t erm of 384T he D i s tr i ctC ourthad j ur i s di ct i on under18 U . S. C . § 3231. W e have 2 ju ri s d ic tio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 a n d 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 7 4 2 (a ). See al s o U ni ted States v. G w in n e tt , 483 F. 3d 200, 203 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( “[T] hi s courtr et ai ns s ubj ectm att er ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r t h e a p p e a l b ya d e f e n d a n t w h o h a d s ig n e d a n a p p e lla te w a iv e r.” ). T he G overnm entpoi nt s outthatthe D i s tr i ctC ourtt echni cal l yvi ol at ed Feder al 3 R ul e of Cri m i nal Pr ocedur e 11 dur i ng A l i ’ s change of pl ea he ar i ng byfai l i ng t o ( 1) di s cus s s peci fi cal l ythe appe l l at e w ai verw i th A l i , and ( 2) confi rm thathe under s t ood that p ro v is io n . See Fed. R . C r i m . P. 11( b) ( 1) ( N ) ( “[T] he courtm us ti nform the def endantof, 4 m o n th s’ im p riso n m e n t. D e sp ite h is p lea a g re e m e n t an d a p p e llate w a iv e r, A li t im e ly appea l ed hi s s ent ence . 2 II. I n hi s pl ea a gr eement , A l i w ai ved hi s r i ghtt o appea l hi s s ent ence unl es s : ( 1) the G o v ern m en t app ea led; (2) the sen tenc e o n an yco u n t of co n v ict ion ex ce ed ed the s tatu tory m axi m um ; ( 3) the D i s tr i ctC ourterr oneous l ydepart ed upw ar d fr om the G ui del i ne r ange; or ( 4) the C ou rtun reas on ablyvari ed u pw ard from the G uidel i ne rang e. N on e of those ci r cumst ance s appl i es : the C ourts ent ence d A l i t o the mandat orym i ni m um s ent ence ( w hi ch r epr es ent ed a 68- m onth dow nw ar d var i ance fr om the G ui del i ne r ange) , and the G o v e rn m e n t h a s n o t ap p e a led th a t se n ten c e . A c c o rd in g ly , w e w ill e n f o rc e th e a p p e llate w ai verand dec l i ne t o deal w i th the mer i t s of A l i ’ s appea l unl es s ( 1) hi s w ai verw as not know i ng and vol unt ary , or( 2) enfor cementof the w ai ver“w oul d w ork a mi s carr i age of j us t i ce. ” U

n itedS ta tes v . G w in n e tt , 4 8 3 F .3 d 2 0 0 , 2 0 3 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). A l i does notaddr es s hi s appel l at e w ai veri n hi s br i ef, m uch l es s cont end thati tw as n o t k n o w in g a n d v o lu n tar y . In a n ye v e n t, ou r re v iew o f th e re c o rd c o n f

irm s th a t A li know i ngl yand vol unt ar i l yw ai ved hi s r i ghtt o appea l . M or eover , w e ar e aw ar e of no 3and det erm i ne thatthe def endantunder s t ands , . . . the t erm s of anypl ea- agr eement p ro v is io n w a iv in g th e ri g h t to a p p e a l o r t o c o lla te ra lly a tta c k th e s e n te n c e .” ). E v e n if A li h a d c h a llen g e d th is d e f icie n c yin th e C o u rt’s c o llo q u y , w e w o u ld still enfor ce the appe l l at e w ai ver( undera pl ai n err oranal y s i s ) , as w e ar e s at i s fi ed thatany defi ci encyi n the col l oquydi d notaff ectA l i ’ s “s ubs t ant i al r i ght s . ” U ni ted States v. C orso , 54 9 F . 3d 92 1, 92 8 (3d C i r. 20 08 ). T ho ug h the D i stri ctC ou rtfai l ed to add res s sp e c if ica llyth e a p p e llate w a iv e r, th e G o v e rn m e n t ex p lain e d th e ter m s o f th e a p p e llate w ai verdur i ng the pl ea he ar i ng, and the C ourtques t i oned A l i t o confi rm that( 1) he had rev iew ed the p lea a g ree m en t w ith h is attorn ey , an d (2) h e u n d erstoo d the a g ree m en t. In th e se c irc u m sta n c e s, A li ca n n o t sh o w th a t “th e d e f icie n t R u le 1 1 c o llo q u yp re c lu d e d h im f ro m u n d e rsta n d in g th a t h e h a d a rig h t to a p p e a l an d th a t h e h a d su b sta n tiallya g re e d to gi ve up thatr i ght . ” U

ni ted States v. G oods on , 5 4 4 F .3 d 5 2 9 , 5 4 0

– 4 1 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). A n exami nat i on of the mer i t s of A l i ’ s chal l enges t o hi s s ent ence demonstr at es 4 th a t e n f o rc e m e n t o f

th e a p p e lla te w a iv e r w ill n o t r e s u lt in a m is c a rr ia g e o f ju s tic e . T hough he di d notr ai s e thes e ar gum ent s befor e the D i s tr i ctC ourt , A l i ar gues on appea l thathi s s ent ence s houl d be vac at ed bec aus e the mandat orym i ni m um s ent ence s r equi r ed by18 U . S. C . § 924( c) vi ol at e the D ue Pr oces s C l aus e of the Fi fth A m endmentand the se p a ra tio n o f

p o w e rs. W e n o te th a t o u r C o u rt h a s re p e a ted lyre jec ted su c h c h a llen g e s to m andat orym i ni m um s ent ence s ( i ncl udi ng the mandat orym i ni m um s ent ence s pr ovi ded u n d e r § 9 2 4 (c )) . See U ni ted States v. W

alker , 4 7 3 F .3 d 7 1 , 7 5

– 7 6 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 7 ); U ni ted States v. MacEw an , 4 4 5 F .3 d 2 3 7 , 2 5 0

– 5 3 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 6 ); U ni ted States v. Fr ank , 864 F .2 d 9 9 2 , 1 0 1 0 (3 d C ir . 1 9 8 8 ). 5 “ mi s c a rr i a g e o f

j u s t i c e ” th a two u l d r e s u l tf r o m e n f o r c i n g th e wa i v e r . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we 4 en fo rce the a p p ell ate w aive r, d ec li n e to re ac h the m erit s o f A li ’s ap p ea l, an d thu s af firm h is s e n te n c e . Se e id . at206 ( aff i rm i ng the D i s tr i ctC ourt ’ s j udgm entaft erenfor ci ng an a p p e lla te w a iv e r) .