A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he det erm i nat i on of th e m o tio n a n d a p p e a l. See Fed. R . A pp. P. 34( a) ( 2) ; 10th C i r . R . 34. 1( G ) . T he c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### A p ril12,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, v. GR EGO RY A. NO VO SEL,

D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. N o. 06- 3251

AP P EA L F ROM THE UNI TE D S TA TE S DI S TR I CT COURT

F OR THE DI S TR I CT OF KANS AS ( D. C. No . 0 4 - CR- 2 0 1 4 5 - KHV) Subm i t t ed on the mot i on: * E l i zabe t h C . B ur ke, Shook, H ar dy& B acon L. L . P. , K ans as C i ty , M i s s our i , for D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. E r i c F. M el gr en, U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney , M ar i et t a Parker , A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A t t or ney , K ans as C i t y , K ans as , forPl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee. B efor e KELLY , O’ BRI EN , and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es. P ER CURI AM .- 2-

D e fe n d a n t G re g o ryA . N o v o se l p led g u iltyto o n e c o u n t o f c o n sp ira c yto ma n u fa c tu r e a n d p o s s e s s mo r e t h a n 1 0 0 ma r ij u a n a p l a n t s i n v i o l a t i o n o f 2 1 U. S . C. §§ 841 and 846, and one c ountof ai di ng and abe t t i ng the us e of a fi r earm dur i ng and i n r el at i on t o and i n fur t her ance of a drug tr aff i cki ng offe ns e i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 924. H e di d s o pur s uantt o a pl ea a gr eementthati ncl uded a w ai ver of hi s r i ghtt o appea l . N ovos el fi l ed a not i ce of appea l and the governm enthas n o w m o v ed to en fo rce the a p p ea l w aive r un d er Uni t ed Stat es v. Hahn , 359 F. 3d 13 15 (10t h C i r. 20 04 ) ( en b anc) ( per curi am ). W e grantthe m oti on and dis m i ss th e a p p e a l. U n d e r th e ter m s o f

th e p lea a g re e m e n t ac c e p ted b yth e d istric t co u rt, N o v o se l “k n o w in g lya n d v o lu n tar yw a iv e [ d ] a n yrig h t to a p p e a l o r c o llate ra lly at t ack a nym at t eri n connec t i on w i th [hi s ] pr os ecut i on, convi ct i on ors ent ence . ” Pl ea A gr eementat7 ( fi l ed O ct . 18, 2005) . M or e s peci fi cal l y , he w ai ved “a ny r i ghtt o appea l a s ent ence i m pos ed w hi ch i s w i thi n the gui del i ne r ange de t erm i ned appr opr i at e byt he court . ” Id . T h e d istric t co u rt se n ten c e d N o v o se l to six ty m ont hs ’ i m pr i s onm enton eac h count , t o be s erved cons ecut i vel y . T hi s s ent ence w as att he st atutorym and at orym i nim um of n ot l ess than fi ve y ears ’ i m pr i s onm entforeac h count . N ovos el s t at es i n hi s docket i ng s t at ementthathe s e e k s t o r a i s e o n a p p e a l t h r e e i n e ffe c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o f c o u n s e l c l a i ms , two c l a i ms- 3-

of s ent enci ng err or , and a c l ai m thathe di d notknow i ngl yand vol unt ar i l yent er in to th e p le a a g re e m e n t. I n Hahn , this c o u rt h e ld th a t a w a iv e r o f a p p e llate rig h ts w ill b e e n fo rc e d if (1 ) “ th e d isp u ted a p p e a l fa lls w ith in th e sc o p e o f th e w a iv e r o f

a p p e llate rig h ts;” ( 2) “the defendantknow i ngl yand vol unt ar i l yw ai ved hi s appel l at e r i ght s ; ” and ( 3) “enfor ci ng t he w ai verw oul d [not ] r es ul ti n a mi s carr i age of j us t i ce. ” 3 5 9 F .3 d a t 1 3 2 5 . T h e m isc a rria g e -o f-ju stic e p ro n g re q u ire s th e d e fe n d a n t to s how ( a) hi s s ent ence r el i ed on an i m perm i s s i bl e fa ct ors uch as r ace ; ( b) i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el i n connec t i on w i th the negot i at i on of the ap p ea l w aive r ren d ere d the w aive r i n v ali d ; ( c) h is sen tenc e e x ce ed ed the s tatu tory m a x im u m ; o r (d ) h is a p p e a l w a iv e r is o th e rw ise u n law f u l an d th e e rro r “ se rio u sly affect [s ] t he fa i r nes s , i nt egr i t yorpubl i c r eput at i on of j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs . ” Id . a t 1 3 2 7 (q u o tatio n s o m itt e d ). T h e g o v e rn m e n t’s m o tio n to e n fo rc e a d d re ss e s a ll o f th ese co n side rati o n s, asse rt ing that n o n e o f th em u n d erm ines d efen d an t’ s ap p ea l w aive r. A s a th re sh o ld m a tter, N o v o se l co n ten d s th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t’s m o tio n to enfor ce the appe al w ai verw as unt i m el yfi l ed under10th C i r . R . 27. 2( A ) ( 3) , w hi ch pr ovi des t hats uch mot i ons “mustbe fi l ed w i thi n 15 day s aft erthe not i ce of appea l i s fi l ed. ” The ci t ed rul e al s o al l ow s forl at e fi l i ng “upon a s how i ng of g o o d c a u s e , ” a n d , u p o n r e v i e w o f th e g o v e rn me n t ’ s mo t i o n a n d r e p l yb r i e f, we concl ude thatcaus e has been s how n forthe del ay ed fi l i ng her e.- 4-

T ur ni ng t o t he mer i t s , N ovos el cont ends , pr es um abl yunderthe m i s carr i age- of-j us t i ce- pr ong, t hathi s appea l w ai veri s unenfor cea bl e. H e ar gues t hathe agr eed t o a pl ea ba r gai n t hatdi d noti ncl ude an appeal w ai verpr ovi s i on and, al t hough he s ubs equent l yagr eed t o i ncl ude an appeal w ai verpr ovi s i on i n t he pl ea a gr eementatt he cha nge- of- pl ea he ar i ng, thatm odi fi cat i on t o the agr eement i s n o te n fo r c e a b l e b e c a u s e i twa s n o ts u p p o r t e d b ya n yn e w c o n s i d e r a t i o n . He al s o cont ends t hathe di d notknow i ngl yand vol unt ar i l yagr ee t o the appe al w ai verand thats om e of the i s s ues he w i s hes t o r ai s e on appe al ar e out s i de the sco p e o f th e a p p ea l w aive r. I. Val i di t y of AppealWai ver A . B ackgr ound I ti s undi s put ed thatt he w r i t t en pl ea a gr eements entt o and agr eed t o by d e fe n d a n t d u ri n g th e p le a n e g o tia tio n s d id n o t in c lu d e a n a p p e a l w a iv e r p ro v is io n . T he defens e couns el i nvol ved i n the negot i at i ons , M r . R i char ds , has s ubm i t t ed an aff i davi ts t at i ng t hatan appe al w ai verw as neverdi s cus s ed dur i ng the pl ea n e g o tiatio n s a n d th a t h e in ten tio n a llyd id n o t ra ise th e iss u e . O p p ’n to M o t. t o E nfor ce, E x. E , at1. A tt he pl ea he ar i ng, the di s tr i ctcourti nqui r ed aboutthe abs ence of an a ppeal w ai ver , and the governm entr epl i ed i thad bee n om i t t ed i nadvert ent l y . M ot . t o E nfor ce, E x. 2 ( Pl ea H r ’ g T r . ) at31- 32. T he pr os ecut or t hen as ked defens e couns el , M r . H oudek, i f defendanthad “a nyobj ect i on t o the s ta n d a rd w a iv e r o f

th e ri g h t to a p p e a l,” a n d M r. H o u d e k im m e d ia te ly sa id , “ N o ,”- 5-

w ith o u t e x p re s s in g a n yc o n c e rn o r o bje c tio n . Id . at32. T he di s tr i ctcourtor der ed a re c e ss to g iv e c o u n se l ti m e to re v iew th e a p p e a l w a iv e r w ith N o v o se l. Fol l ow i ng t he r ece s s , N ovos el r epr es ent ed t o the courtthathe had r ead the pl ea a gr eementand di s cus s ed i tw i th couns el and under s t ood thati tnow i ncl uded a w a iv e r o f

h is ri g h t to a p p e a l. Id . at 34 -35 . T h e d istri ct co u rtp rob ed N o v o sel’s u n d e rsta n d in g o f

th e a p p e a l w a iv e r a t g re a t len g th , an d N o v o se l re p e a ted ly re p re se n ted to th e c o u rt th a t h e k n o w in g lya n d v o lu n tar ilya g re e d to w a iv e h is r i ghtt o appea l anys ent ence det erm i nat i on m ade bythe courts o l ong as the se n ten c e im p o se d w a s w ith in th e a d v iso ryg u id e lin e ra n g e d e ter m in e d a p p ro p ria te b yth e c o u rt . Id . at35- 39. T he di s tr i ctcourtexpl i ci t l yi nform ed N ovos el that u n les s h e w a s s e n ten c e d a b o v e th e a d v iso ryg u id e lin e ra n g e , h e w a s w a iv in g h is r i ghtt o appea l “anyof [the court ’ s deci s i ons w i th r egar d t o [hi s ] s ent ence or anyt hi ng el s e thathas happene d i n the ca s e. ” Id . at35. N ovos el t ol d the courthe under s t ood t hi s . Fur t her , al t hough N ovos el i ni t i al l yi ncl uded an obj ect i on t o the appea l w ai veri n hi s obj ect i ons t o the pr es ent ence r eport , atthe s ubs equent s ent enci ng hear i ng, N ovos el r epr es ent ed t o the courtthathe w as w i thdr aw i ng t hat obj ect i on and w ai vi ng anyobj ect i on t o the i ncl us i on of the appe al w ai veri n the pl ea a gr eement . M ot . t o E nfor ce, E x. 3 ( Sent enci ng H r ’ g T r . ) at3.- 6- B . P re -Ex istin gD u ty R u le I n s uppor tof hi s curr entcl ai m thatthe appe al w ai veri s unenfor cea bl e, and th e re fo re u n law f

u l, N o v o se l cite s to a g e n e ra l co n tra c t p rin c ip le, o f ten re fe rre d to a s th e p re -e x istin g d u tyru le, th a t p a st c o n sid e ra tio n is in su fficie n t to su p p o rt a n e w c o n tr a c t m o d ific a tio n . S e e , e .g ., R e sta tem e n t ( S e c o n d ) of C o n tra c ts § 73 ( 1981) ( not i ng gener al rul e thatper form ance of a pr e- exi s t i ng l egal dutyi s not c o n sid e ra tio n ); C ont empo D es ign, Inc. v. C hi cago & N. E . Il l . D is t . C ounci lof C arpen t ers , 2 2 6 F .3 d 5 3 5 , 5 5 0 (7 th C ir. 2 0 0 0 ) (e n b a n c ) (“ T h e p re -e x istin g d u ty rul e s t at es t hatpr om i s i ng t o per form a dutythatal r eadyi s ow ed underan exi s t i ng c o n tra c t is n o t co n sid e ra tio n , an d , thu s, a m o d ifica tio n to th e c o n tra c t is unenfor cea bl e. ”) . T he purpos e of the rul e i s “t o pr eventcoer ci ve modi fi cat i ons . ” C ont empo D es ign , 226 F. 3d at550. N o tab ly , the g e n e ra l p re -e x istin g d u tyru le r e lied u p o n b yN o v o se l is n o t a uni ver s al l yacc ept ed pr i nci pl e of c ontr actl aw . I ndeed, i thas been a bol i s hed for s a le s o f g o o d s u n d e r t h e U n ifo rm C o m m e rc ia l C o d e . See U. C. C. 2 - 2 0 9 ( 1 ) ( “ An agr eementm odi fy i ng a contr actw i thi n thi s A r t i cl e nee ds no cons i der at i on t o be bi ndi ng. ”) . O ne ci r cui tcour thas r ece nt l ynot ed that“[a ] l l of the mosti nfl uent i al t r eat i s es ur ge court s t o avoi d us i ng the pr eexi s t i ng dutyrul e i f eve n m i ni m al cons i der at i on s uppor t s t he contr act . ” Johns on v. SeacorMar i ne C or p. , 404 F. 3d 8 7 1 , 8 7 5 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). O n e su c h tre a tise sta tes th a t “[ t]h e p re -e x istin g d u ty rul e i s under goi ng a s l ow er os i on and . . . i s des t i ned t o be overturned, ” and- 7-

caut i ons t hat“[a ] cour ts houl d no l ongeracc eptthi s rul e as ful l yes t abl i s hed [a nd] s houl d neverus e i tas t he maj orpr emi s e of a deci s i on, atl eas tw i thoutgi vi ng c a re f u l th o u g h t to th e c irc u m sta n c e s o f th e p a rticu lar c a se .” 2 Jo se p h M . P e rillo & H e le n H . B e n d e r, C o rb in o n C o n tra c ts § 7 . 1 , at 34 2 (rev . ed . 1 9 9 5 ). A w e ll-es tab lish e d e x c e p tio n to th e p re e x istin g d u tyru le is th a t co n tra c ts th a t h a v e n o t b e e n f

u llyp e rfo rm e d m a yb e m o d ified w ith o u t n e w c o n sid e ra tio n if th e m o d ific a tio n is fa ira n d e q u ita b le . See R e sta tem e n t ( S e c o n d ) of C o n tra c ts § 89 ( 1981) ( “A pr om i s e modi fy i ng a dutyundera contr actnotful l yper form ed on ei t hers i de i s bi ndi ng . . . i f the modi fi cat i on i s fai rand equi t abl e i n vi ew of c ir c u m s ta n c e s n o t a n tic ip a te d b yth e p a rt ie s w h e n th e c o n tr a c t w a s m a d e . . . .” ). A s expl ai ned bel ow , att he t i m e N ovos el acc ept ed the appe al - w ai verm odi fi cat i on, no ton l yw as the p l ea agreem ent w ho l l yexecu t ory , i tw as not y etbindi ng becau se t he di s t r i ctcour thad noty etacc ept ed N ovos el ’ s gui l typl ea.

C . For m at i on of

a B i ndi ng P l ea Agree m ent “The l aw governi ng t he i nt erpr et at i on of pl ea a gr eement s i s an amal gam of cons t i tut i onal , s upervi s or y , and pr i vat e contr actl aw conce rns . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. Wood , 378 F. 3d 342, 348 ( 4t h C i r . 2004) . T hi s courthas r ecogni zed thatthe

“ [ r]u les o f

c o n tra c t law in fo rm th e in terp re tatio n a n d e n fo rc e m e n t o f p ro m ise s in a pl ea a gr eement . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. R ockwel lInt ’ lC or p. , 124 F. 3d 1194, 1199W e r ecogni ze, how ever , t hatt he appl i cat i on of contr actpr i nci pl es m aybe 1 te m p e re d b yp u b lic p o lic yc o n s tr a in ts . See Hahn , 359 F. 3d at1318. T hus , t he co u rtev alua tes p lea a g ree m en ts an d ap p ea l w aive rs i n li g h t of the d efen d an t’ s re a s o n a b le u n d e rs ta n d in g a t th e tim e o f th e g u ilty p le a , Uni t ed Stat es v. G uz m an , 318 F. 3d 1191, 1195- 96 ( 10t h C i r . 2003) , and s tr i ct l ycons trues t he s cope of an a p p e lla te w a iv e r i n fa v o r o f th e d e fe n d a n t, Uni t ed Stat es v. Tayl or , 413 F. 3d 1 1 4 6 , 1 1 5 2 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ).

- 8- ( 10t h C i r . 1997) . T he Second Ci r cui thas r ecogni zed thata pl ea a gr eementcan 1 b e c h a lle n g e d fo r l a c k o f c o n s id e ra tio n , Un itedS ta tes v . B ru n e tti , 376 F. 3d 93, 95 ( 2d C i r . 2004) ( percur i am), and thi s courthas as s um ed s o fort he s ake of a rg u m e n t, Uni t ed Stat es v. Her nandez , 1 3 4 F .3 d 1 4 3 5 , 1 4 3 7 -3 8 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). N ovos el does notpoi ntus t o, and w e w er e unabl e t o l ocat e, anycas e appl y i ng t he p re-ex ist ing d u tyrule to a p lea-ag ree m en t m o d ifi ca ti o n , h o w ev er. A l t hough t he i nt erpr et at i on of a pl ea a gr eementm aybe i nform ed by c o n tra c t law , the fo rm a tio n a n d a c c e p tan c e o f a b in d in g p lea a g re e m e n t is g o v e rn e d b yF e d e ra l R u le o f C ri m in a l P ro c e d u re 1 1 . See Uni t ed Stat es v. P art i da -Pa rra , 859 F. 2d 629, 634 ( 9th C i r . 1988) ( “The for m at i on of bi ndi ng pl ea agr eement s i s governed notbyt he U ni form C om m er ci al C ode, butbyt he Feder al R u les o f C ri m inal P roc ed u re, w h ich re q u ir es, am o n g o ther thin g s, that the c o u rt ap p rov e the p lea a g ree m en t. ”). In m ostcases, con t ractpri ncipl es w i l l be w ho l l ydis po si t i ve b ecause n e ith e r sid e sh o u ld b e a b le, a n ym o re th a n w o u ld b e p riv a te contr act i ng part i es , uni l at er al l yt o r enege ors eek modi fi cat i on s i m pl ybeca us e of uni nduced mi s t ake orchange of m i nd. A pl ea ag ree m en t, h o w ev er, i s n o t si m p lya c o n tr ac t betw ee n tw o p arti es. It nece s s ar i l yi m pl i cat es t he i nt egr i tyof the cr i m i nal j us t i ce s y s t em and- 9-

r equi r es t he court s t o exer ci s e j udi ci al author i tyi n cons i der i ng the p le a a g re e m e n t a n d in a c c e p tin g o r r eje c tin g th e p le a . Wood , 3 7 8 F .3 d a t 3 4 8 (q u o ta tio n s a n d a lte ra tio n s o m itte d ).

“ A p lea b a rg a in sta n d in g a lo n e is w ith o u t co n stitu tio n a l sig n ifica n c e ; in i t s el f i ti s a mer e exe cut or yagr eementw hi ch, unt i l embodi ed i n the j udgm entof a c o u rt, d o e s n o t d e p riv e a n a c c u se d o f lib e rtyo r a n yo th e r c o n stitu tio n a lly pr ot ect ed i nt er es t . ” Mabr y v. Johns on , 4 6 7 U . S . 5 0 4 , 5 0 7 (19 8 4 ) (ho lding , w h ere g o v e rn m e n t w ith d re w m o re fa v o ra b le p lea b a rg a in w h e n d e fe n d a n t so u g h t to acc epti t , t hatdefe ndantdi d nothave a nydue pr oces s r i ghtt o have f i r s toffe r sp ec ifi ca ll yen fo rce d u n less an d u n ti l i t w as a cc ep ted b ythe tri al co u rt ). C o u rts have he l d t hatunderR ul e 11, “[a ] pl ea a gr eement , and ther efor e anym odi fi cat i on of a pl ea a gr eement , m us tbe ac cept ed bythe courtbefor e i ti s bi ndi ng. ” Uni t ed Stat es v. F l oyd , 1 F .3 d 8 6 7 , 8 7 0 (9 th C ir. 1 9 9 3 ); see also Uni t ed Stat es v. G onz al ez , 918 F. 2d 1129, 1133 ( 3d C i r . 1990) ( “[A ] pl ea a gr eementi s nei ther b ind ing n o r en fo rce ab le un ti l i t i s ac ce p ted in o p en co u rt . ”). H er e, w hen the governm ents oughtt o add an appeal w ai verpr ovi s i on at N o v o se l’s p lea h e a rin g , the d istric t co u rt h a d n o t y e t ac c e p ted N o v o se l’s g u ilty pl ea ort he pl ea a gr eement . U nderthe type of pl ea a gr eementati s s ue her e, the d istric t co u rt w a s f

re e to “ a c c e p t th e a g re e m e n t, reje c t it , o r d e fe r a d e c isio n u n tilT h e g o v e rn m e n t ag re e d , u n d e r R u le 1 1 (c )(1 )(A ), to d ism iss fo u r o f th e six 2 c o u n ts in N o v o se l’s in d ictm e n t. Itf u rth e r a g re e d , u n d e r R u le 1 1 (c )(1 )(B ), to r ecomm end a tw o- l evel r educt i on i n the appl i cabl e offens e l evel , a s ent ence att he lo w e n d o f

th e a d v is o ry g u id e lin e ra n g e , a n d n o t to re q u e s t a n u p w a rd d e p a rt u re . U n d e r R u le 1 1 (c )(3 )(A ), a c o u rt m a ya c c e p t, reje c t o r d e fe r a c c e p tan c e o f a R u le 1 1 (c )(1 )(A ) p lea a g re e m e n t. W h e n th e a g re e m e n t is th e typ e sp e c ified in R u le 1 1 (c )(1 )(B ), “th e c o u rt m u st a d v ise th e d e fe n d a n t th a t [ h e ] h a s n o rig h t to w i t hdr aw t he pl ea i f the courtdoes notfol l ow t he r ecomm endat i on orr eques t . ” R ul e 11( c) ( 3) ( B ) . T he di s t r i ctcourtgave N ovos el t hi s advi s ementatt he R ul e 11 hear i ng. O n c e a d e fe n d a n t’s g u iltyp lea is e n ter e d a n d a c c e p ted b yth e c o u rt, 3 how ever , t he defendanti s bound byt he pl ea a gr eement , s ubj ectt o the pr ovi s i ons o f R u le 11 (d)(2 ).

- 10- [i t ] . . . r evi ew ed t he pr es ent ence r eport . ” Fed. R . C r i m . P. 11( c) ( 3) ( A ) . T he 2 di s t r i ctcourtdi d notacc eptei t herN oves el ’ s gui l typl ea ort he pl ea a gr eement unt i l aft ert he part i es had adde d the appe al w ai vert o the pl ea a gr eementand the co u rth ad q u esti o n ed an d ad v ised N o v o sel i n ac co rda n ce w ith R u le 11 (b)(1 )-( 3 ), i ncl udi ng i nform i ng hi m of hi s appea l r i ght s and the t erm s of the appe al w ai ver pr ovi s i on. It is c lea r u n d e r R u le 1 1 th a t, un til th e m o m e n t th e c o u rt a c c e p ted h is g u ilty pl ea, N ovos el w as fr ee t o w i t hdr aw hi s gui l typl ea “ foranyr eas on orno r eas on. ” R u le 1 1 (d )(1 ). B yth e sa m e to k e n , b e c a u se th e c o u rt h a d n o t y e t ac c e p ted h is gui l t ypl ea, N ovos el r et ai ned the choi ce t o ei theracc eptt he appe al - w ai ver m odi fi cat i on orr ej ectt he modi fi cat i on and pr ocee d t o tr i al w hen the governm ent p ro p o s e d a d d in g th e a p p e a l- w a iv e r p ro v is io n to th e p le a a g re e m e n t. S e e id . 3- 11-

R ul e 11 does notaddr es s w hetherther e ar e ci r cumst ance s underw hi ch a sign ed p lea a g ree m en t m ayb e b ind ing o n the g o v ern m en t pri o r t o the d efen d an t’ s entr yof a gui l t ypl ea. T he Supr eme C our thas hel d thatw hen a pr os ecut or w i t hdr aw s a pl ea a gr eementbefor e the defendantent er s hi s pl ea, the defendant c a n n o t s p e c ific a lly e n fo rc e it. Mab ry , 467 U . S. at511. T hi s cour thas hel d, u n d er Mab ry , that a p rose cu tor w as e n ti tl ed to w ith d raw an o ral plea o ffer b efo re th e d e fe n d a n t a c c e p te d it a n d b e fo re it w a s a c c e p te d b yth e c o u rt . Uni t ed Stat es v. R andel , 8 F. 3d 1526, 1528 ( 10th C i r . 1993) . T he N i nth C i r cui thas hel d that th e g o v e rn m e n t is n o t b o u n d to th e w ritten p lea a g re e m e n t ite n ter e d in to w ith defe ndantunt i l t he di s t r i ctcourtacc ept s the pl ea a gr eement , buti tr ecogni zed the pos s i bi l i t yt hat“w her e detr i m ent al r el i ance i s s how n, the governm entm aybe bound even be for e the di s t r i ctcour tacc ept s the agr eement . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. Kuchi ns ki , 4 6 9 F .3 d 8 5 3 , 8 5 7 -5 8 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ); see also Sa ntobel l o v. New York , 404 U . S. 257, 262 ( 1971) ( “[W ] hen a pl ea r es t s i n anys i gni fi cantdegr ee on a pr om i s e oragr eementof the pr os ecut or , s o thati tcan be s ai d t o be a pa r tof the in d u c e m e n t o r c o n s id e ra tio n , s u c h p ro m is e m u s t b e f u lfille d .” ). N ovos el ar gues t he modi fi cat i on al t er ed the bar gai n atthe hea r tof hi s pl ea a g re e m e n t a n d th a t h e is e n title d to re c e iv e th e b e n e fit o f h is o ri g in a l b a rg a in . H e does not , how ever , cont end he de tr i m ent al l yr el i ed upon the or i gi nal pl ea agr eementorpr ovi de anybas i s foras s er t i ng a detr i m ent al r el i ance cl ai m . T he E i ght h C i r cui thas hel d t hatw her e a de fenda ntl earns of a c hange t o the pl ea- 12-

a g re e m e n t b yth e g o v e rn m e n t b e fo re h e e n ter s h is g u iltyp lea , h e c a n n o t b e sa id to h a v e d e tr im e n ta lly re lie d u p o n th e p ri o r p le a a g re e m e n t. Uni t ed Stat es v. C oon , 805 F. 2d 822, 825 ( 8t h C i r . 1986) . I n C oon , the governm entand the defendant agr eed t o a w r i t t en pl ea a gr eementthati ncl uded an e rr oneous pot ent i al m axi m um fi ne of $25, 000, r athert han the ac tual m axi m um fi ne of $250, 000. T he day befor e the pl ea he ar i ng, t he governm entnot i fi ed defendantof the corr ect m axi m um fi ne. B efor e he e nt er ed hi s pl ea, the defendantt ol d the courthe knew t he maxi m um fi ne coul d be $250, 000. T he courti m pos ed a $100, 000 fi ne, and t he defendantt hen ar gued the fi ne coul d notexce ed the $25, 000 l i m i tr epr es ent ed t o hi m i n t he or i gi nal pl ea a gr eement . H e cl ai m ed he w as “boxed i n” and ha d no c h o ic e b u t to g o th ro u g h w ith th e p le a e v e n th o u g h h e w a s to ld o f th e h ig h e r fin e . C i t i ng Mab ry , t he Ei ght h C i r cui thel d thatdefe ndanthad no cons t i tut i onal c o n tr a c t- lik e e x p e c ta tio n in te re s t in th e o ri g in a l a g re e m e n t. Id . a t 8 2 4 . D efe ndants oughtt o di s t i ngui s h Mab ry bycl ai m i ng detr i m ent al r el i ance , ci t i ng t he fa ctt hathe had pr ovi ded i nform at i on t o the governm entunderthe or i gi nal agr eement . T he Ei ght h C i r cui tdi s agr eed, rul i ng thatunt i l the mom entthatthe defe ndantent er ed hi s gui l t ypl ea, he r et ai ned the opt i on t o pl ead notgui l tyand p ro c e e d to tr ia l, a n d th u s , s u ffe re d n o d e tr im e n ta l r e lia n c e . Id . at 8 2 5 . “T h e o n ly ch an g e in p o sit ion that ca n b e c o n side red ‘de tr im en tal reli an ce ’ i s the ac tual en try of an i nvol unt arygui l t ypl ea. ” Id .- 13-

H er e, as i n C oon , N ovos el l earned of a nd vol unt ar i l yagr eed t o the cha nge to th e p lea a g re e m e n t b e fo re h e e n ter e d h is g u iltyp lea . H e d id n o t se e k to w i t hdr aw fr om t he pl ea a gr eementon the bas i s thathe had i nt ended t o pr es erve hi s appea l r i ght s , nordi d he i nform the courtthathe eve n had an e xpect at i on that he w oul d pr es erve hi s appea l r i ght s . T o the contr ary , defe ns e couns el i m m edi at el yand w i t houtanydi s cus s i on orobj ect i on t ol d the courtthatN ovos el w a s w illin g to in c lu d e a s ta n d a rd a p p e a l w a iv e r p ro v is io n in th e p le a a g re e m e n t. N ovos el di d nott hen t el l t he court , nordoes he now cl ai m thati ncl us i on of an appea l w ai verw as i n anyw ayt he r es ul tof anygovernm ent al coer ci on, thr eat s or m i s r epr es ent at i ons . T he di s t r i ctcourtfound, bas ed on N ovos el ’ s r epr es ent at i ons to th e c o u rt , th a t h e u n d e rs to o d a n d v o lu n ta ri ly en te re d in to th e a p p e a l w a iv e r. A s i n C oon , he ca nnothave de t r i m ent al l yr el i ed upon the or i gi nal pl ea a gr eement beca us e he w as fr ee t o acc eptt he cha nge and e nt erhi s pl ea ort o r ej ectthe cha nge a n d p ro c e e d to trial. I n Mab ry , t he C our tm ade c l earthe r el evantt es t : “A pl ea of gui l tyent er ed byone ful l yaw ar e of the di r ectcons equenc es , i ncl udi ng the ac tual val ue of a ny c o m m itm e n ts m a d e to h im . . . m u s t s ta n d u n le s s in d u c e d b yth re a ts . . . , m is re p re s e n ta tio n . . . , o r . . . p ro m is e s th a t a re b yth e irn a tu re im p ro p e r . . . . ” 46 7 U . S . 50 9 (bracket s and q uo t at i on om i t t ed). W e con cl ud e t hat unde r these ci r cumst ance s , w her e the part i es vol unt ar i l ym odi fi ed the exe cut orypl ea agr eementpr i ort o t he di s t r i ctcourt ’ s acc ept ance of N ovos el ’ s gui l typl ea, and- 14-

th e re is n o sh o w in g o f a n yd e trim e n tal re lian c e th a t m ig h t b in d th e g o v e rn m e n t to th e p lea a g re e m e n t b e fo re e n tryo f th e p lea , the p re -e x istin g d u tyru le is i nappl i cabl e. W e fi nd no err ort hat“s er i ous l yaffect [s ] the fa i rnes s , i nt egr i tyor publ i c r eput at i on of j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs , ” Hahn , 359 F. 3d at1327 ( quot at i on o m itt e d ), an d , the re fo re , d o n o t fin d th a t en fo rc in g th e a p p e a l w a iv e r w ill re su lt i n anym i s carr i age of

j us t i ce. Kno w i ngan d Volunt ary N o v o se l n e x t co n ten d s th a t h e d id n o t k n o w in g lya n d v o lu n tar ilya g re e to t he appe al w ai verbeca us e he w as notaw ar e new cons i der at i on w as r equi r ed for t he modi fi cat i on. A s expl ai ned above , how ever , new cons i der at i on w as not r equi r ed t o add an a ppeal - w ai verpr ovi s i on t o the exe cut orypl ea a gr eementpr i or t o N ovos el ’ s entr yof hi s gui l t ypl ea orthe di s tr i ctcour t ’ s acc ept ance of the pl ea agr eement . N ovos el cl ai m s t hathe w as nots ur e w hatw as happeni ng w i th r es pect t o t he addi t i on of the appe al w ai ver , butthi s as s er t i on i s di r ect l ycontr aryt o the r epr es ent at i ons he made t o t he di s tr i ctcour tthathe di d under s t and the t erm s of th e a p p e a l w a iv e r a n d h e d id k n o w in g ly an d v o lu n ta ri ly ag re e to th e w a iv e r. “[S] t at ement s m ade i n a pl ea c ol l oquyar e pr es um ed t o be true. ” Uni t ed Stat es v. E dgar , 348 F. 3d 867, 873 ( 10t h C i r . 2003) . T he l anguage of the pl ea a gr eement s t at es t hatdefe ndantent er ed the agr eementknow i ngl yand vol unt ar i l yand the re c o rd s h o w s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt c o n d u c te d a n a d e q u a te R u le 1 1 c o llo q u y . See Hahn , 359 F. 3d at1325. N ovos el has fai l ed t o m eethi s “bur den t o pr es ent- 15-

evi dence fr om t he r ecor d es t abl i s hi ng thathe di d notunder s t and the w ai ver . ” Id . at1329. Scope of AppealWai ver N ovos el fi r s tcont ends t hathi s thr ee i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el cl ai m s ar e out s i de the s cope of t he appe al w ai verand thathe s houl d be perm i t t ed to p u rsu e th e se c laim s o n d ire c t ap p e a l. H is d o c k e tin g sta tem e n t li sts

“ [ i]n e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f c o u n se l b a se d o n th e re c o rd ,” “ [ c ]o u n se l’s fa ilu re to n e g o tiate a m o re fa v o ra b le p lea a g re e m e n t,” a n d “ [ c ]o u n se l’s fa ilu re to o bjec t to tr ia l c o u rt e rr o rs in a d v is in g [ h im ] o f th e p e n a ltie s .” D o c k e tin g S ta te m e n t a t 4 . W e a ss u m e fo r th e sa k e o f a rg u m e n t th a t th e se in e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e c laim s re late

– a s th e ym u s t – to c o u n s e l’ s n e g o tia tio n o f th e a p p e a l w a iv e r. See Hahn , 3 5 9 F . 3 d a t1 3 2 7 . No v o s e l c o n c e d e s th a ti n e ffe c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o f c o u n s e l c l a i ms m u s t o rd in a ri ly b e ra is e d in a c o lla te ra l 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 p ro c e e d in g . See Uni t ed S ta tes v . D e la c ru z-S o to , 4 1 4 F .3 d 1 1 5 8 , 1 1 6 8 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ); Uni t ed Stat es v. P or t er , 405 F. 3d 1136, 1144 ( 10t h C i r . ) ( “Thi s rul e appl i es even w her e a defe ndants eeks t o i nval i dat e an appel l at e w ai verbas ed on i neffect i ve as s i s t ance o f c o u n s e l.” ), cer t . deni ed , 126 S. C t . 550 ( 2005) . I ndeed, hi s pl ea a gr eement pr es erves hi s r i ghtt o br i ng a § 2255 mot i on as s er t i ng a cl ai m thatcouns el w as i neffect i ve in con necti on w i t h the neg oti at i on of the app eal w ai ver. H e con t end s, how ever , t hats om e of c ouns el ’ s err or s ar e pl ai n fr om the r ecor d. W e di s agr ee;- 16-

anyi neffect i ve as s i s t ance cl ai m w oul d have t o r el yon extr a- r ecor d excha nges b e t we e n c o u n s e l a n d c l i e n tt h a ta r e b e y o n d o u rp u r v i e w. F inally , N o v o sel see k s to a ssert an ap p ell ate c lai m that the d istri ct co u rt fai l ed t o ens ur e ther e w as a fa ctual bas i s forhi s gui l typl ea t o the § 924( c) fire a rm s c h a rg e . T h o u g h th e a p p e a l w a iv e r sta tes th a t h e w a iv e s th e rig h t to appea l “anym at t eri n connec t i on w i th [the] pr os ecut i on, convi ct i on and s ent ence , ” N ovos el ar gues t hi s br oad w ai verl anguage i s l i m i t ed bythe p ro v isio n ’s s u b se q u e n t d e sc rip tio n o f th o se a sp e c ts o f

h is s e n ten c e th a t h e c o u ld and coul d notappea l undert he w ai ver . W e fi nd no ambi gui ty , how ever . T he p ro v isio n ’s m o re d e taile d d e sc rip tio n o f th e c o n to u rs o f

h is w a iv e r w ith re g a rd to s ent enci ng i s s ues i n no w ayl i m i t s i t s br oad w ai verof hi s r i ghtt o appea l any m at t eri n connec t i on w i t h hi s pr os ecut i on and convi ct i on, w hi ch w oul d i ncl ude h is c laim th a t th e d istric t co u rt fa iled to e n su re th e re w a s a su fficie n t fa c tu a l b a sis forhi s gui l t ypl ea. A ccor di ngl y , w e G R A N T the governm ent ’ s m ot i on t o enfor ce the appe al w ai veri n t he pl ea a gr eementand D I SM I SS t he appe al . T he mandat e s hal l i s s ue for t hw i t h.