NONP RE C E DE NT I AL DI S PO S I T I ON To b e ci te d o nl y i n a cc o r dan ce wi th Fed. R. A pp . P. 32 . 1 

# U ni ted S tat es Cour t of App eals

F orth e Se ve nt h Ci r c uit Chicago, Illin ois 60604 Submitted Octobe r 16, 2009 Dec ided June 15, 2010 Before J OEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge MI CHAEL

S. KANNE, Circuit Judge TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge No. 08-3753

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Appea l from the United States

Plaintif f-Appellee , District Court for the

Norther n District of Indiana. v. No. 06 CR 00023 VERNELLA. B ROWN,

De fe nd an t- Ap pe lla nt. There sa L . Springma n, District Judge
. OR DE R O n M a y 2 4 , 2 0 0 6 , Ve r ne l l B r o wnwa s in d ict e d , a l o ng wit h M a r l y n B a r ns , M e l v in08 -3 75 3 P age 2

Taylor , Michael Alexander, Theodis Armstead, and Herbert Hi ghto wer, for conspi racy to po s s es s w i th inte nt t o di s tribu te m ore th anfi ve ki logra ms of c oc aine , in vi ola ti on o f 21 U.S.C. § 846. Br own ini tiall y pro ceeded to t rial w i th Barnes, Taylor and Armstead. However , several day s into t he trial, the di stric t courtstopped the pr oceedi ng and de c la red a m i s tri alto al lowBrown, Ta ylor, an d A rms tea d to s ever the i r c as e from Ba rne s . B row n p le ad ed gu i lty b ef ore p roc eed ing t o tri alaga in. As pa rt of the pl ea agr eement, the g ov ernment agr eed to recommend a sentence at the low-end of the gu i de line ran ge or a t th e s tatu tory m ini mu m o f 1 20 mo nth s i f the gu i de line s fe llbe low the mini mu m. Th e d i s tri c t c ou rt s en ten c ed Brown to 12 0 m onths, th e s tatu tory mini mum . Brown now appeals, b ut hi s appointed counsel h as moved to wi thdraw becau se he cannot identi fy any nonfrivolous argument t o pursue on appeal. SeeAnd ers
v. Ca lif o rnia, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Bro wn opposes c ounsel’s m otion. SeeCIR . R. 51(b) . We confine our r eview to the pot entiali ssu es i denti fi ed in couns el’s fac i ally adequate brief

and Brown’s response. SeeUnit edSt a te s v . Sch uch , 2 89 F.3 d 9 68 (7 th C i r. 2002); CIR. R. 51(b). On M ay 5 , 2 00 6, the s i x ind i vi du al s ind i c ted in th i s c as e w ere a rres ted as the y
arr i ved atthe si te o f a plann ed drug heis t where t hey in tended to steal numerous kilograms of cocaine. Unknown to t he defendants, the c ouriers for the t arg et dr ug shi pment, who orchestrat ed thi s drug hei st wi th the defendants, were a confi denti al08 -3 75 3 P age 3

informant and an undercover agent. The shi pment of drugs di d not ex i st. All of the planning meetings an d pre-hei st prepar ations were captured on audi o and video tapes. Alexander and Hi ghto wer pleaded gui lty ear ly on in the proceedings. The remaining defendants, inclu ding Bro wn, proceeded to t rial. Short ly before t he begi nning of the tr i al, the go ver nment fi led a motion pu rsuant to 21 U .S.C. § 851(a)(1) informi ng Bro wn tha t th e gove rnm en t inte nd ed to enha nc e h i s s en ten c e b as ed on h i s pri or c onvi c ti on for p o ss e ss io n o f a na r co t ic c o nt r o l l e d su bs t a nc e in t he st a t e o f M ich ig a n w hic h r e su l t e d in an ei ghteen-month sentence. Brown di d not r ai se any objections to this motion. Early in th e tri al, Arm s tea d, Brown, an d T ayl or m oved fo r a m i s tri albe c au s e B arn es agre ed to testif y on t hei r behalf. The di stric t courtgr anted the mi strial an d severed t he defendants’ trials . Barnes proceeded to tr i al alone and was found gui lty. In Mar ch 2008, s hort ly before his tr i al was sch eduled to star t again, Brown
en tere d into a p le a a gree me nt w i th the govern me nt. One key c om pon en t of the pl ea agr eement was that i t allowed Bro wn to plead gui lty t o an amount of drugs less than
w ha t th e ind i c tm en t c ha rged . Thi s red uc ti on in d rugqu an ti ty de c rea s ed the s tatu tory
ma nd atory m i ni mu m s en ten c e fromtw en ty yea rs to tenyea rs . Un de r the dru g qu an ti ty in the plea agr eement the stat utor y maxim um s entence remai ned li fe in pri son. The gov ernment agr eed to recommend that the dis tr i ct court sentence Bro wn at the low end of the gu i de line s ran ge or to the s tatu tory m ini mu m o f 1 20 mo nth s i f the gu i de line s08 -3 75 3 P age 4

range did not meet thatmini mum . In the plea agr eement, Bro wn ac knowledged that the mini mu m s en ten c e h e c ou ld rec ei ve w as tenyea rs be c au s e h e h ad a p ri or c onvi c ti on for a felony drug o ffens e whi ch had become final before the t i me of the agr eement. Brown m ad e th e s am e a c kno w le dgm en t in op enc ou rt du ring h i s c ha nge of pl ea hearin g. The plea agre ement also contai ned an express wai ver of Bro wn’s ap peal rights: “I expre ssl y wai ve my r i ght t o appeal or to cont est my convic tion and m y
s en ten c e a nd any res ti tu ti on o rde r i mp os ed or th e m anne r in whi c h m y c onvi c ti on o r sentence or the r esti tution order was d eter mined or imposed, to any Cour t on any grou nd , inc lu ding a ny c la i m o f ine ffec ti vel y as s i s tan c e of c ou ns elun le s s the c la i me d ineffec tive ass i stance of coun sel relates di rectly to t hi s waiver or i ts negot i ation.” In May 2008, approx i mately t wo months after enter ing a plea of guil ty, Br own moved t o wi thdraw hi s gui lty plea. Br own stated that he was wi thdrawi ng hi s plea and all pri or testim ony because he entered the g ui lty plea “under duress and feared li fe long i mpri sonment.” After sev eral months of hearings, affi davits, an d bri efing, the dis tr i ct court found that Br own was not coer ced into ent ering the plea agre ement. In asses sing Brown’ s argu me nt, the di s tri c t c ou rt an al yze d th e p oten ti als en ten c es Brown c ou ld ha ve faced h ad he gone t o tr i al and the sentencing recommendations in the plea agr eement. Th e d i s tri c t c ou rt f ou nd tha t Brown’ s attorn ey w as c orrec t in te ll ing B row n th at i f ajury found hi m gui lty and held hi m responsi ble for the amount o f drugs charged i n the08 -3 75 3 P age 5

ind ict me nt, B r o wnwo ul d fa ce a min imu m t we nt y -y e a r se nt e nc e a nd co ul d fa ce l ife in pris on. The di stric t courtbased i ts calc ulati ons of the mini mumand maxi mum
s en ten c es on the govern me nt’ s not i c e u nd er 2 1 U. S.C . § 85 1 s eek ing a n inc rea s ed statuto ry mini mumsentence du e to Brown’s prior possess i on convic tion in Mi chi gan. Inthe bri ef

fi le d p urs ua nt t o And ers , couns el fi rst asserts thatBrown cannot raise any meritorious arg ument ch allengi ng hi s convi cti on becaus e he enter ed into an
unc ondi tional, knowing, and voluntar y plea of guilty pursuant to a plea agr eement. Brown’ s rep ly m ake s tw o argu me nts tha t are inte rtw ine d a nd bo th a ttac k th e va li di ty of the pl ea agre em en t as a kn ow i ng a nd volu nta ry w ai ver of hi s ri ght s . The s tan da rd of revi ewap pl i c ab le to w he the r a gu i lty p le a i s kno w ing a nd volu nta ry i s “whe the r look ing a t th e tota l c i rc um s tan c es s urro un ding the pl ea, th e d efen da nt w as inform ed of hi s or her rights.” Unit edSt a te s v . M it che ll , 5 8 F. 3d 12 21 , 1 22 4 ( 7thCi r. 1 99 5) . In revi ew ing whe the r a d efen da nt w as inform ed of hi s ri ght s an d th e s ub s eque nt p le a agre em en t w as volu nta ry, w e revi ewthe pl ea un de r the requi rem en ts of Fed era l Rul e of Criminal Procedure 11. To comportwi th Rule 11, the dis tr i ct court must advis e the defendant of hi s cons tituti onal rights, the charges again st hi m, the factual b ases for the plea, and the mini mumand maxi mumpenalti es. Unit edSt a te s v . G a rci a , 35 F.3d 1125, 1132 (7th Ci r. 1994). These s afeguards help ens ure thatthe defendant’s plea i s knowing and voluntar y. Id.08 -3 75 3 P age 6

Brown a rgu es tha t he di d n ot w ai ve h i s ri ghtto ap pe albe c au s e h i s pl ea of gu i lty
w as notkno w i ng a nd volu nta ry. H e a s s erts tha t hi s c ou ns elan d th e d i s tri c t c ou rt mis inf o r me d him abo utthe st a t ut o r y min imu m a nd ma x imu m p e na l t ie s b e ca us e his
se nt e nc e sh o ul d no tha v e be e n e nh a nc e d un d e r2 1 U . S . C . § 8 4 1 o n t he ba sis o f h is Michi gan convic tion. Th i s argument i s un availing. Prior to tr i al, the go ver nment fi led a
mo ti on p urs ua nt t o 21 U.S. C. § 8 51 inform ing B row n of the govern me nt’ s inte nti on t o seek an enhanc ed sentence bas ed on Bro wn’s p rior convic tion for possess i on of cocaine in Mi chi gan. At t hat time, Brown di d not o bject. Whi le there i s some di screpanc y rega rding whe the r Brown’ s ei ght een -m onth s en ten c e w as fo r inc arc era ti on o r probat i on, ther e i s no argument inthe re cord to counter t he gov ernment’s assertion that the Mich i gan convic tion w as a state felony convicti on. Bro wn c ontends that because the federal system does not t reatmere possessi on as a felony, a felony convicti on for sim ple possess i on i n state courtcannot be us ed to e nhanc e the statut or y mi ni mumsentence under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)( B). We are notaware of any courtholding that a stat e felony d r ug co nv ict io n f o r p o ss e ss io n d o e s n o tt r ig g e r the inc r e a se d ma nd a t o r y min imu m in 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)( B) bec ause s i mple poss essi on i s not a felony in the federal system. Based on the recor d before us and the prevailing state o f the law known to defense
c ou ns elan d th e d i s tri c t c ou rt at th e ti me of the pl ea agre em en t, B row n d i d n ot rec ei ve mi sinformation about hi s potential s entencing li abi li ty. Ther efore, his arg ument that he08 -3 75 3 P age 7

was c oer ced into pleadin g guilty due to mis information about the pote nti al sentences he faced i s wi thout mer i t. Cou ns el al s o as s erts tha t Brown c annotrai s e a ny a pp ea labl e i s s ue s w i th re gard to t he di stric t court ’s deni al of hi s moti on to wi thdraw hi s plea of gui lty. “A defendant does not hav e an absolute ri ght t o wi thdraw a plea before sentencing, although t he court may allo w hi m to do so if he h as a fai r and just r eason for doing so.” Unit edSt a te s
v. Cha ve rs , 5 15 F.3 d 722 , 724 (7 th C i r. 2 00 8) . W e a gree w i th c ou ns eltha t Brown d i d n ot de mo ns trate a f ai r an d ju s t rea s ons fo r w i thd raw ing h i s pl ea of gu i lty. Brown a rgu ed that he ente red into hi s plea agreement under duress becau se he was afrai d of receiving a l i fe s en ten c e. How ever, the di s tri c t c ou rt prop erl y f ou nd tha t de fe ns e c ou ns el ’s
c an di d e val ua ti on o f B row n’ s pote nti als en ten c ing l i ab i li ty i f h e w en t to tri alw as not coerci on nor di d i t creat e i mpermi ssi ble duress . Therefore , any arg ument that the di stric t courterr ed by not allo wing Bro wn to wi thdraw hi s gui lty plea would be fri vo lous. Lastly, counsel as serts that any arg ument ch allengi ng Bro wn’s s entence would be fri vo lous bec ause Brown sp eci fi cally wai ved his right to appeal his sentence. When a de fe nd an t en ters i nto a kn ow i ng a nd volu nta ry pl ea of gu i lty p urs ua nt t o a p le a
a g r e e me nt tha tco nt a ins a n e x p l icitwa iv e r o f t he d e fe nd a nt ’ s r ig ht t o a p p e a l his sentence, thi s Court wil l honor t hat wai ver and refuse to rev i ew the sentence, un less the08 -3 75 3 P age 8

sentence ul tim ately r ecei ved was in excess of the statutor y maxim um s entence or was the re sult of the di stric t court ’s relian ce on a consti tutionally i mpermi ssi ble fac tor such
as race. Jo nes v. Unit edSt a te s , 1 67F.3 d 1 14 2, 11 44 (7 th C i r. 1 99 8) . The w ai ver in th e p le a agr eement was expli ci t and, for t he reasons di scu ssed ab ov e, we agree wi th the dis tr i ct
c ou rt th at i t w as en tere d into volu nta ri ly a nd kno w ingl y. The s en ten c e d oes notexc eed the s tatu tory m axi mu m a nd the re i s no e vi de nc e th at th e d i s tri c t c ou rt rel i ed on i mp erm i s s ibl e f ac tors i n c om i ng t o a s en ten c e. Th erefore, in l i ghtof thi s exp li c i t w ai ver, any arg ument regar ding the sentence would be frivolous. For the re asons s et for th above , we GRANT the moti on to wi thdraw and DISMI SS Brown’s appeal.