FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT NOV 29 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [ DO NOT PUBLISH ] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 06- 1233 7 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D
. C. D oc ke t N o. 04- 0063 2- CR -0 1- CA P- 1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A , Plaintiff-Appellee , v e r s u s KORAK JEROME M ANUEL , D ef en da nt- A ppe llant
.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court for the NorthernDistrict of Ge orgia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (N ove m be r 29, 200 6) Be fo re MA RC U S , W IL SO N a nd PR Y O R , Ci rc uit

Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Kora k Jerom e Manuel appeals his 168 -mon t h sentence, which w as im posed after he pled guilt y

pursuant to a written plea agreem ent, to seven counts of un arm ed2

ba nk r obbe ry . O n a

ppe al , Manue l arg ue s th e fo llo w ing : (1 ) the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed by de ny ing a n of

fe nse -l ev el r ed

uc tio n f or a cc ep ta nc e of

r es pons ibi li ty , pur suant t o U. S. S. G. § 3E1.1; and (2) the district court’ s sentence, w hich was an up ward variance from the Guidelines range of 108 to 135 m onth s’ im prisonm ent, was unreasonable. A ft er c ar ef ul r ev ie w , w e dis m iss in pa rt a nd a ff irm in pa rt
. The fact s re le va nt t o t h e i n s ta nt sen te nc in g c la im s ar e st rai gh tfo rward . On O ct obe r 25, 200 5, by

se co nd sup erce din g in dic tm en t, Manue l w as c ha rg ed w ith six te enc ount s of

unarm ed bank ro bb ery , in vio la tio n of 18 U
. S. C. § 21 13( 1) ; on e
co unt of a rm ed ba nk r obbe ry , in vio la tio n of 18 U
. S. C. § 21 13( d) ; and o ne c ount of usi ng and c ar

ry ing af ir earm in co nne ct ionw ith a cr im e of vio le nc e, in vio la tio n of 18 U
. S. C. § 92 4( c)
. A t M anue l’ s ar ra ign m en t, the gove rn m en t m ove d to dis m iss f our of the unarm ed bank robbery counts an d M anuel subs equently proceeded to a j ury tr ia l onthe r em ai nin g c ount s. O n th e se co nd d ay

of the tr ia l, a ft er

the gove rn m en t ha d pr es en te d th e te sti m ony of se ve ra l w itn es se s, M anue l pl ed to se ve n c ount s of

ba nk r obbe ry , in exchange for w hich the gov ernm ent agreed to dism iss the rem aining charges, w hich included th e § 9 2 4 (c ) char ge. The w ritten plea agree m ent contained a waiver -ofap pe al pr ovi sio n, w hic h r ea d a s f oll ow s:3

LI MIT ED W AI VE R O F A PPE AL : To the m axim um extent perm itted by f ed er al law , the de fe ndant v olu ntari ly a nd e xpr es sly

w ai ve s th e ri ght to a ppe al his se nte nc e and the ri ght to col la te ra lly at ta ck his se nte nc e in an y pos t- co nvi ct ionpr oc ee din g on an y g r o un d , e x c e p t

th at the de fe ndant m ay f ile adir ec t a

ppe al of a n up w ar d de pa rt

ure fr om the oth er

w ise applicable sentencing guid eline range. The defendant und erstands that thi s Pl ea A gr ee m en t doe s not li m it the G ove rn m en t’ s r igh t t o a ppe al , but if the G ove rn m en t a

ppe al s the se nte nc e im

pose d, the de fe ndant m ay

a lso file a dire ct appeal of his sentence. At a subs equent plea col loqu y , the governm ent proffer ed the following factual ba sis f or Manue l’ s pl ea . B etw ee n a ppr oxi m at el y

May 29, 200 3 a nd Nove m

ber 3, 2004 , Manuel robbed n um erous Bank of Am erica an d SunTrust branches located ins ide gr oc er

y sto re s. I n to ta l, about

$70 , 000 in c as h w as sto le n. D ur ing the
ro bbe ri es , w hic h w er e re co rd ed on s urve ill an ce ta

pe s, Manue l w or e a fl oppy ha t and
use d atow el or

ne w spap er to hi de his f ac e. Manue l w as se enle av ing one of the
ro bbe ri es in a ve hic le tha t w as tr ac ed ba ck to h im
. D ur ing asub se que nt s earc h of his hom e, F BI ag en ts fo und dy e- sta ine d m one y , an d shi rt s th at m at ch ed the c lothin g th e
ro bbe r w as w eari ng i n th e sur ve ill an ce phot ogr ap hs. Manue l adm itt ed his r ole in the
ro bbe ri es a nd the a m ount of m one y inv olv ed , a nd h e ex pr es sed r em or se f or his
co nd uc t. A ft er a dvi sin g Manue l of his ri ght s, an d the lim ita tio ns on his righ t to a ppe al , the district court acce pted the guilt y plea. In t he course o f th e p lea collo quy , the court advised Manue l tha t un de r the ple a ag re em en t, ( 1) “ it’ s no t po ssi ble to de te rm ine4

exactly how the guidelines are goin g to apply to y our case until a presentence r eport is com pl et ed , a nd y ou and the gov er nm en t have ha d th e oppo rt uni ty to obj ec t and ch al le nge a ny fa ct s [i n the PS I] ”; (2 ) the co urt “ re ta ine d the auth or ity
. . . to im pose
a se nte nc e tha t i s m or e se ve re or le ss s ev er e than ase nte nc e ca lle d f or by the gui de lin es ”; an d (3 ) Manue l w as w ai vin g his ri ght to ap pe al , “ w hic h m eans y ou’ ll be boun d by [ m y ] de ci sio n, a nd y ou ar e al so w ai vin g y our r igh t t o c oll at er al ly

a tta ck thi s sentence.” Manuel indicated that he understoo d t h e p ro v i s ions. The district court then accepted Manuel’ s guilt y plea. The probation officer

pre p ar ed a presentence investig ation report (“ PSI ”), not ing tha t the of

fe nse s w oul d no t be gr oupe d to ge the r. T he c al cu la tio ns f or m ost of the c ount s w er e the sa m e: a ba se of fe nse le ve l of 20 unde r U
. S. S. G
. § 2B 3. 1, w itha 2- le ve l e nhanc em en t un de r U
. S. S. G
. § 2B 3. 1( b) (1 ) be ca use th e of

fen se inv olv ed

a fi na nc ia l i nst itu tio n. T hus, f or the se c ount s, the tot al ad j ust ed of fe nse le ve l w as 22. Fo r the r obbery c ha rg ed

in Co unt 2, the P SI inc lud ed

a n e nhanc em en t f

or thr ea t of de ath un de r U
. S. S. G
. § 2B 3. 1( b) (2 )( F) , in co nne ct ionw ithanot e Manue l ha nde d to the te lle r. T hus, the a dj ust ed of fe nse le ve l f

or tha t c ount

w as 24
. Pu rs ua nt to the
m ultip l e- count adjustm ent of U .S .S .G . § 3D 1.4, Manuel’ s com bined offense level
w as inc re as ed

by f ive poi nts , r es ult ing in ana dj ust ed of fe nse le ve l of 29. T he PS I did not r ec om m en d a red

uc tio n for a cc ep ta nc e of

r es pons ibi lity , U
. S. S. G
. § 3E 1. 1, not ing5

that Manuel had forced the gov er n m ent to prepare f or and proceed to trial before
en te rin g h is pl ea. T he P SI cal cu late d ac ri m ina l- his tor y c at eg or y I II ba se d onManue l’ s pr ior convicti on s f

or the f t
- by

- t aki ng ( 19 94 ) , D U I ( 19 94 ), battery /dom estic violence (1997), and consp iracy

to com m it robbery

(1998). W ith an offense level of 29 and a cr im inal his tor y c at eg or y II I, the a dvi sor

y G uid el ine s r an ge w as 108 to 135 m onths’ im prisonm ent. T he PSI noted that an up ward departure m ight b e appropriate under U. S. S. G. § 5K2.21 in consideration of t he dism issed and uncharged conduct. Manuel lod ge d ob

j ec tio ns t o th e en ha nc em en t f or thr ea t of de ath, the co m

pu tati on o f his crim ina l hi sto ry

c at eg or y , a nd the de nia l of

ar ed uc tio n f or a cc ep ta nc e of
res po ns ib il it y . A t the se nte nc ing he ar ing , the c ourt su st ai ne d th e obj ec tio ns t o th e enhancem ent for th reat of death and the crim inal histo ry category , but rej ected Manue l’ s ar gum en t tha t he w as e nti tle d to a n a cc ep ta nc e- of -r es pons ibi lity

r ed uc tio n. T he c ourt f

ound tha t M anue l l et

the c as e go t oo far be fo re ple ad ing gui lty
. W iththe
sus ta ine d ob

j ec tio ns t o th e PS I, the dis tr ic t cour t de te rm ine d th at

the a dj ust ed

of fe nse le ve l w as 27 and the c ri m ina l hi sto ry c at eg or y w as I I, re sul tin g inaG uid el ine s r an ge of 78 t o 97 m onths’ im

pr iso nm en t. B as ed

on the te rm s of the pl ea a gr ee m en t, the go v ernm ent said it was not asking for an “ upward departure ” above the Guidelines6

range, but di d request a sentence at the high end of the range. T he court stated that it w as co nsi de ri ng im

posi ng a 180 -m onth “ upw ar d de pa rt ur e” se nte nc e, e ve n a

bse nt
a m otion by

the governm ent, noting th e following factors: ( 1) Manuel’ s crim inal hi st or y ; ( 2) the num

be r of r obbe ri es inv olv ed

in the ins ta nt o ff

en se s; and ( 3) the
co ur t’s b el ie f th at 97 m on th s was no t s uf fic ie nt pu ni sh m en t. De fense counsel then told th e court that Manuel had pled guil ty and expressed
re m or se , ha d am ini m al c ri m ina l hi st ory , a nd h ad be ene m plo y ed
. T he c ourt a lso he ar d th e m iti ga tin g te sti m ony of Manue l’ s m oth er and M anue l’ s si ste r, w ho d es cr i b ed Ma n u el ’s ch i l d h o o d , m i l i t ar y s er v i ce , a n dch ar ac t e r , a s we l l as Ma n u el ’s statem ent of rem orse and request for a shorter sentence. A ft e r l i s t e n i n g t o t h e w i t n e s s e s , t h e c o u rt n o t e d t h e s e n t e n c i n g f a c t o r s in 18 U. S.C
. § 3553 (a) and im posed a sentence of 168 m onth s -- a sentence the district
co u rtt er m ed an “ up wa rd d ep ar tu re ” - - in l i g h t o f th e n at u re o f th e o ff en s e, Ma n u el ’s histo ry , the n u m

b er o f robb eries involved, and the fact that Manuel had comm itted the of fe nse s for both the m one y an d the thr ill
. T he co urt a lso not ed the c ont inu ous
a n dd a n g e r o u s b e h a v i o r t h a t c o u l d h a v e e n d e di n v i o l e n c e , a n ds t a t e dt h a ti th a dc o me dow n f ro m the 180 -m onth se nte nc e it pr ev iou sly ha d m en tio ne d at the he ar ing , pr ior to h eari ng M anue l’ s m iti ga tin g te sti m ony a nd s tatem en t of

r em or se . Manue l a ga in obj ec te d to a se nte nc e ab ove the a dvi sor y r an ge to w hic h th e dis tr ic t c ourt r es pond ed ,7

“ sin ce I m ad e anupw ar d de pa rtur e it is m y be lie f tha t y ou c anpr oc ee d w ithy our ap pe al c onc er

nin g th e se nte nc e. ” T his appe al f oll ow ed
. Fi rs t, M a n u e l a r g u e s h e w a s e n t i t l e d t o a r e du c t i o n f o r a c c e p t a nc e of responsib ility
. The governm ent urges that the waiver p ro v i s ion in Manuel’ s plea agreem ent bars t his argum ent, and notes that Manuel do es not sug gest that the plea
was no t k no win g a nd vo lu nt ary. A se nte nc e app ea l wa ive r co nta ine d in aple a ag re em en t, m ad e know ing ly a nd vol unt ar ily , is en fo rc ea

ble
. Se e U nit ed St at es v. Bu she rt , 997 F. 2d 1343 , 134 5, 135 0- 51 ( 11th Ci r. 1993 ); se e al so U nit ed St at es v. Co pe la nd, 381 F
. 3d 1 101, 110 7 ( 11th Ci r. 200 4)
. T he w ai ve r can in cl ude the waiv er of the r igh t t o a ppe al “ dif

fi cu lt or de ba ta ble le ga l i ssu es or ev en bla ta nt er ro r. ” U nit ed

S ta te s v. F ry e, 402 F
. 3d 1 123, 1129 (11th Cir.) , cert. denied, 1 25 S. Ct. 298 6 (2005). To enfor ce a sentence-appeal
w ai ve r, the gov er

nm en t m ust de m onstra te e ith er

tha t ( 1) the dis tr ic t cour

t sp ec if ic al ly que sti one d th e de fe ndant a bout the w ai ve r dur ing the ch an ge of ple a co llo quy , or

( 2) the record c learly

shows that the defendant otherwise un derstood th e full significance of the w ai ve r. I d. a t 13 51. He re, althoug h the appeal wa iver excepts “ upward departures, ” we do no t read th at pr ov is io n to m ean th at ev en if th e di st ric t cou rt im po se d an “ up ward de pa rtu re,” Manu el was f

re e to a ppe al a ny

a nd a ll as pe ct s of

his se nte nc e unr el at ed

to theAfter United States v. Booke r, 543 U.S. 220 (2005 ), we have explained that the ter m 1 varia nce r efe rs to a sente nce outside the advisory Guidelines rang e based on the § 3553(a) sentenc ing fac tors. United S tates v. I rizarry , 458 F.3d 1208, 1211 ( 11th Cir. 2006); cf. United States v. Eldick, 443 F.3d 783, 788 n.2 ( 11th Cir. 2006) (explaining “the rec ord rev eals that the district c ourt, at rese ntencing , did not treat its decision to se ntence Eldick above the g uideline rang e a s an u p wa rd de pa rt ur e , b ut r a the r a s an e xer c ise of its disc ret io n bec a

us e the c ourt

did no t c ite to a

sp e c if ic g uidelines depa

rture provision and, in the words of the district court, the guidelines did ‘not adequately

take into ac count the seve rity of th e d amage done by

Mr. Eldick, and, the ref

ore, I find that they should not be applied.’ The ref ore, w e conc lude that we a re not re viewingthe proprie ty of a “guidelines” de parture .”); United States v. Scott, 441 F.3d 1322, 1330 (11th Cir. 2006) (de clining 8 im posi tio n of

ase nte nc e ab ove the a dvi sor y G uid el ine s r an ge . T he re is n o in dic at ion in the record that Manuel m isund erstood the wa iver o n this p oint, and it is clear that he en te re d into the ag re em en t, inc lud ing the ap pe al -w ai ve r pr ovi sio n, kno w ing ly a nd volu ntarily
. The language of the plea agre em ent is plain. Moreover, at the plea
co llo quy he ar ing , the c ourt c onf

irm ed tha t M anue l ha d di sc uss ed the w ai ve r w ith counsel and th at he understood it. T hus, the appeal w aiver is enforc eable and it at le as t c ove rs the c ha lle nge to the de nia l of ar ed uc tio n f or a cc ep tanc e of
r e s p o n s i b i l i t y. A c c o r d i n g l y, w e d i s mi s s t h e ap p e a l a s t o t h i s c l a i m. Manuel next argues that h i s s en tence w as unreasonable because there w as noth ing abou t his case that falls outside th e “ heartland” of cas es o r warr anted im posit ion of a sentence that wa s 73 per cent high er than the top-end of the G uidelin es
range , a nd b ec au se the dis tr ic t c ourt f ai le d to m ak e suf

fi ci en t fi ndi ngs to supp ort the
se nte nc e ab ove the G uid el ine s r an ge , w hic h w e ha ve te rm ed a“ va ri an ce , ” not

a

“ departure. ” Manuel also argues the district court’ s consid eration of his crim inal

1to addre ss sentence outside the g uidelines rang e base d on § 3553(a) fac tors).

Howeve r, i n l i g h t o f the “ upward departure ” language used in th e plea ag re em en t, a t the ple a co llo quy , an d at the se nte nc ing he ar ing , in thi s c as e, w e cannot fi nd tha t M anue l kn ow ing ly a nd v olu ntari ly

w ai ve d hi s r igh t t o a

ppe al the im

posi tio n of sentence above the G uidelin es range. 9 his tor y , in the c ont ex t of

it s § 3 553( a) a na ly sis , c onst itu te d im pr ope r doub le c ount ing becau s e t he sam e inform ation was considered in calculating his crim inal histo ry
c a t e g o ry. W e re vie w adis tr ic t c ourt’ s in te rp re ta tio n of the G ui de lin es de nov o a nd i ts fi ndi ngs of

f ac t f or c le ar e rr or . U nit ed

S ta te s v. Jord i, 41 8 F.3 d 1212, 121 4 ( 11th Ci r. ), c er t. de nie d, 126 S
. Ct
. 812 ( 2005 ). A ft er adis tr ic t c ourt ha s c al cu la te d a de fe ndant’ s a dvi sor

y G uid el ine s range , it “ m ay im pose am or e se ve re or

m or e le nie nt
se nte nc e, ” w hic h w e re vie w onl y fo r re as ona ble ne ss. U nit ed St at es v. Cr aw fo rd , 407 F. 3d 11 74, 1179 (11t h Cir. 2005 ). In conducting our reasonableness review , w hich is high ly defer ential, w e do not appl y the reasonableness standard to each indiv idual decis i on m a de du r i ng t he se nt e nc i ng pr oc e ss ; i ns t e a d, w e r e vi e w on l y t he final
se nte nc e fo r re as ona

ble ne ss, in lig ht of the § 3553( a) fa ct or s. U nit ed S ta te s v. Mart in, 455 F.3d 122 7, 1237 (11th Cir. 2006 ). The district c ourt nee d not state on the record that it has explicitly considered each factor and need not discuss each factor. United States v
. T a l l e y , 43 1 F
. 3d 78 4, 78 6 ( 11 t h C i r . 20 05 ) ( pe r c ur i a m )
. R a t he r , an10

ac know le dgm en t by

the dis tr ic t c our

t th at i t ha s c onsi de re d th e de fe ndant’ s a rg um en ts
an d t he § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s wi ll su ffi ce. Id
. He re, the district court consid ered M an u el’ s argum ents for a lesser sentence and noted h is m itigatin g evidence, but w as persuaded to im pose a harsher sentence be ca use of the se ri ousn es s of

the c ri m e, inc lud ing the num be r of r obbe ri es inv olv ed , the fact that Manuel use d t hreats as part of the offenses, and the fact that Manuel
co nti nue d to c om

m it the r obbe ri es f

or the “ thr ill ” of

it
. T he dis tr ic t c ourt a lso hig hli ght ed

Manue l’ s c ri m ina l hi sto ry . T hus, the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s r ul in g pl ai nly
re fl ec ts c onsi de ra tio n of th e § 355 3( a) f ac tor s, inc lud ing : the na tur e an d circum stances of the offense; the history and charac teristics of Manuel; the advisory Se nte nc ing G uid el ine s r an ge ; and the ne ed f or the se nte nc e to r ef

le ct the se ri ousn es s of the of fe nse , pr om ote r es pe ct f

or th e la w, a nd p ro vid e j ust pun ish m en t. S ee 18 U
. S. C. § 35 53( a)
. Mo re ove r, the dis tr ic t c ourt e xpl ic itl y dis cu sse d th e ap pli ca tio n of the § 35 53( a) f

ac tor s a s ne ce ssary

to de te rm ine ar ea sona

ble se nte nc e. O n th is r ec or d, Manuel cannot satisfy

his burden to show that t h e d i s t rict court im posed an
u n r e a s o n ab l e s e n t e n c e . A c c o r d i n g l y, w e a f f i rm. DISM ISSED IN P AR T A ND AF FIRMED IN P AR T.