FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT DEC 13 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 10958 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 3 - 0 0 1 2 6 - C R - F T M- 2 9 - DN F U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s D A N I E L M I C H E L , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( D e c e m b e r 13, 2006) B efo re A N D E R S O N , C A RN E S an d B A R K E T T , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: D a ni e l M i c he l appe a l s hi s 147- m onth s e nt e nc e f orc ons pi r i ng t o pos s e s s f i ve k i l o g r a ms o rmo r e o f

c o c a i n e w i th th e i n t e n tt o d i s tr i b u t e , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 2 1 U . S. C.2

§§ 846 a nd 841( b) ( 1) ( A ) , a nd f orus i ng a nd c a rry i ng af i r e a rm i n r e l a t i on t o adrug tr a f f i c ki ng c r i m e , i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . § 924( c ) ( 1) ( A ) . M i c he l a r gue s tha tthe d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d w h e n it ap p lie d th e S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s a s m a n d a to ry , in l i ghtof the S upr e m e C our t ' s de c i s i on i n U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B ooke r , 543 U . S . 220, 12 5 S . C t . 73 8 (20 05 ). M i chel al so cl ai m s thatthe di stri ctcourtvi ol at ed B oo ker by sc ori ng the S ent enci ng G ui del i nes bas ed on 15 -50 k i l og ra m s of c ocai ne w hen on l y “ 5 k i l og ra m s or m ore of c ocai ne” w as char ged i n the i nd i ctm entand adm i tt ed t o i n the pl e aa gr e e m e nt . F i na l l y , M i c he l c ont e nds tha thi s s e nt e nc e i s c rue l a nd un usual i n v i ol at i on of the E i gh th A m endm ent . T he go vernm entre spon ds that M ic h e l’s B o o k e rc la im s a r e b a rr e d b y h is v a lid s e n te n c e ap p e a l w a iv e ra n d th a t h is E ig h th A m e n d m e n t c la im f a ils o n th e m e r its . W e a g r e e w ith th e g o v e rn m e n t.

I . T h e g o v e rn m e n t c o n te n d s th a t M ic h e l’s B o o k e rc la im s a r e b a rr e d b y h is se nt ence appeal w ai ver. W hether adefe nd antkn ow i ng l y a nd vo l un t ar i l y w ai ved hi s r i ghtt o appe a l i s aque s t i on of l a w tha tw e r e vi e w de novo. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B eni t ez -Z apat a, 13 1 F . 3d 14 44 , 14 46 (11th C i r. 19 97 ). W e w i l l enforce an appeal w a i ve ri f i ti s s how n tha te i the r( 1) the di s tr i c tc our ts pe c i f i c a l l y que s t i one d the de f e nda ntaboutthe appe a l w a i ve r , or( 2) the r e c or d c l e a r l y s how s tha tthe de f e nda ntf ul l y unde r s t ood the w a i ve r . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. G r i na r d- H e nry , 399 F . 3d3

1 2 9 4 , 1 2 9 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) , c e r t. d e n ie d , 5 4 4 U .S . 1 0 4 1 , 1 7 2 5 S . C t. 2 2 7 9 ( 2 0 0 5 ) . A n app ea l w ai ver m ayw ai ve the ri gh tt o app ea l bl at anterrors — i ncl ud i ng B oo ker e rr or s . B r oa d w a i ve rl a ngua ge w i l l c ove rB ooke rgr ounds f orappe a l . I d. T he di stri ctj ud ge spec i fi ca l l y quest i on ed M i chel abou tthe appeal w ai ver i nc l ude d i n hi s pl e aw r i tt e n a gr e e m e nt , a nd M i c he l i ndi c a t e d tha the w a s m a ki ng the w a i ve rknow i ngl y a nd vol unt a r i l y . W e w i l l thus e nf or c e the w a i ve r . S e e i d. M i c he l ’ s w a vi e rc ont a i ne d e xc e pt i ons a l l ow i ng hi m t o appe a l i f: ( 1) the s e nt e nc i ng j udge m a de a n upw a r d de pa r tur e , ( 2) the s e nt e nc e w a s above the s t a tut ory m a xi m um , ( 3) the s e nt e nc e w a s i n vi ol a t i on of the l a w apa r tf

r om the S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s , or( 4) the gove rnm e nte xe r c i s e d i t s r i ghtt o appe a l . N one of the s e e xc e pt i ons appl y t o hi s B ooke rc l a i m s . T he s e nt e nc i ng j udge di d not departup w ar d, M i chel w as no tse nt ence d abo ve the st atut ory m axi m um for e i ther of hi s c r i m e s , a nd the gove rnm e ntha s notappe a l e d. S e e 21 U . S . C . §§ 846, 84 1(b)(1)(A ); 18 U . S . C . § 9 24 (c )( 1)(A ). F urtherm ore, w e have hel d thatB oo ker ch al l en g es d i rect l y i n v o l v e th e ap p l i cat i o n o f th e S en t en ci n g G u i d el i n es an d , th u s, ar e notbase d o n a vi ol at i on of l aw apartfr om the S ent enci ng G ui del i nes. S ee G r in a r d - H e n ry , 3 9 9 F .3 d a t 1 2 9 7 . M i c he l of

f e r s s e ve r a l r e a s ons tha tw e s houl d di s r e ga r d the w a i ve r . F i r s t , he4

a r g u e s th a tth e g o v e rn m e n t“ i s u s i n g at e c h n i c a l i ty t o d e f e a tth e g o v e rn m e n t ’ s o wn prom i se s t o D ef

endant ” t o b e s ent ence d atthe l ow end o f the gu i del i ne ra ng e. (B r. f o rA p p e lla n t a t 3 .) T h e r e a r e s e v e r a l p r o b le m s w ith th is a r g u m e n t. T h e w a iv e ris n o t ate c h n ic a lity ; it is an e g o tia te d p a r t o f th e g o v e rn m e n t’s p le aa rr a n g e m e n t. T he gove rnm e nta l s o di d notpr om i s e t o s e nt e nc e M i c he l t o the l ow e nd of the gu i del i ne ra ng e— a prom i se i tw ou l d b e pow er l es s t o carryou tbecause prose cut ors d o n o t sen ten ce d ef

en d an ts. In stea d , i t p ro m ised n o t t o o p p o se th e d ef en d an t’ s r e q u e s t f o ras e n te n c e a t th e lo w e n d o f th e g u id e lin e r a n g e , ta k in g c a r e to e x p la in to M ic h e l th a t it w a s th e d is tr ic t c o u r t th a t w o u ld u ltim a te ly d e c id e o n h is s e n te n c e . T he gove rnm e ntke pti t s pr om i s e . F i na l l y , M i c he l w a s s e nt e nc e d a tthe l ow e nd of the gu i del i ne ra ng e. S ec on d, M i chel ar gu es thatthe di stri ctcourt ’ s e xp l anat i on of the appeal w ai ver w as “ l on g, com po un d, com pl ex, and d i d n otcl ea rl y i nform D ef endant . ” (B r. for A pp el l antat4. ) I n fac t , the re cord re fl ec t s thatthe di stri ctcourtused ra ther s ucci nctand cri sp l angu age t o adequ at el y e xp l ai n a com pl i ca t ed i ss ue. Th i r d , M i c h e l a r g u e s th a th e c o u l d n o th a v e w a i v e d h i s Bo o k e rc l a i ms because a tthe t i m e thathe agree d t o the appeal w ai ver, he coul d n othave been aw ar e of the B oo ker deci si on . W e have al re ady e nforced an appeal w ai ver c ha l l e nge d on i de nt i c a l gr ounds . G r i na r d- H e nry , 399 F . 3d a t1295 ( de ny i ng a5

m o tio n f o rr e c o n s id e r a tio n o f

th e v a lid ity o f

a n ap p e a l w a iv e rin lig h t o f B o o k e r ) . F i n al l y, M i ch el t el l s u s th atw e sh o u l d d i sreg ard th e ap p eal w ai v er b ecau se “th e ap p e lla te c o u r t h a s a n im p o r ta n t s u p e rv is o ry r o le o v e rth e lo w e rc o u r ts to e ns ur e tha tthe l a w i s unde r s t ood. ” ( B r . f orA ppe l l a nta t4. ) W e a r e s ur e tha tthe di s tr i c tc our ti s a w a r e the S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s a r e onl y a dvi s ory . S e e D i a z v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , N o. 2: 05- c v- 2- F t M - 29D N F , 2005 U . S . D i s t . L E X I S 38498 a t27 ( M . D . F l a . D e c . 19, 2005) ( S t e e l e , J . ) ( de m ons tr a t i ng i t s a w a r e ne s s tha t“ the S ent enci ng G ui del i nes w er e f ou nd t o b e a dv i soryon l y” ). T he di stri ctcourtdo es n o t r e q u ir e o u rtu te la g e . II. M i c he l a l s o c ont e nds tha thi s s e nt e nc e i s c rue l a nd unus ua l i n vi ol a t i on of th e E i g h th A m en d m en t . T h i s ch al l en g e i s n o tb arred b y h i s ap p eal w ai v er b ecau se a vi ol at i on of the E i gh th A m endm enti s ase nt ence i n v i ol at i on of the l aw apart f r o m th e S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s , a n d th e r e f o r e f a lls w ith in a n e x c e p tio n to h is w ai v er. H o w ev er, h i s co n t en t i o n fai l s o n th e m eri t s. B e c a u s e M ic h e l d id n o t r a is e a n E ig h th A m e n d m e n t o b je c tio n a t tr ia l, th is C our tr e vi e w s onl y f

orpl a i n e rr or . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R a a d, 406 F . 3d 1322, 1 3 2 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) , c e r t. d e n ie d , 1 2 6 S . C t. 1 9 6 ( 2 0 0 5 ) . T h e E ig h th A m e ndm e ntpr ovi de s tha t“ [ e ] xc e s s i ve ba i l s ha l l notbe r e qui r e d, nore xc e s s i ve6

f i ne s i m pos e d, norc rue l a nd unus ua l puni s hm e nt s i nf l i c t e d. ” U . S . C ons t . A m e nd. V III. A s ap p l i ed t o n o n cap i t al cases, th e E i g h th A m en d m en tco n t ai n s o n l y a n a rr o w p r o p o r t i o n a l i ty p r i n c i p l e . Se e Ew i n g v . Ca l i f o rn i a , 5 3 8 U . S. 1 1 , 2 0 , 1 2 3 S. C t . 11 79 , 11 85 (200 3). S ucce ss ful chal l enges t o the prop ort i on al i ty of ano ncapi t al se nt ence un der the E i gh th A m endm entar e e xtre m el y r ar e bec ause of the defer ence a c c o r d e d to C o n g r e s s ’ a u th o r ity to d e te rm in e th e typ e s a n d lim its o f p u n is h m e n ts . R aa d, 40 6 F . 3d at13 23 . T he bu rden i s on the defendantt o sho w thatthe se nt ence the di stri ctcourti m po se d i s di spropo rt i on at e t o the offens e c om m i tt ed. S ee i d. at 13 24 n. 4. “ In general , a s ent ence w i thi n the l i m i t s i m po se d b y s t atut e i s nei ther e xc e s s i ve norc rue l a nd unus ua l unde rthe E i ghth A m e ndm e nt . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M ori arty, 42 9 F . 3d 10 12 , 10 24 (11th C i r. 20 05 ) ( qu ot at i on om i tt ed). M ic h e l h a s f

a ile d to d e m o n s tr a te th a t th e s e n te n c e im p o s e d is g r o s s ly d is p r o p o r tio n a te to th e o f f e n s e c o m m itte d . I n h is p le a , M ic h e l a d m itte d to c ons pi r i ng t o pos s e s s w i th the i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e appr oxi m a t e l y 40 ki l ogr a m s of c oc a i ne , i n vi ol a t i on of

21 U . S . C . §§ 846 a nd 841( b) ( 1) ( A ) , a nd t o us i ng a nd c a rry in g af

ir e a rm d u r in g a n d in f

u r th e r a n c e o f

ad ru g tr a f

f ic k in g c r im e , in v io lati o n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 4 (c )( 1 )( A ). T h e m ax im u m p en alty fo r M ich el’s vi ol at i on of § 8 46 w as l i fe i m pri sonm ent , so the di stri ctcourtse nt ence d M i chel w e l l unde rthe s t a tut ory l i m i t . § 841( b) ( 1) ( A ) . M e a nw hi l e , M i c he l ’ s s e nt e nc e f or7

vi ol a t i ng § 846 w a s a tthe bott om of the appl i c abl e gui de l i ne s r a nge , w hi c h the d is tr ic t c o u r t lo w e r e d d u e to M ic h e l’s s u b s ta n tia l a s s is ta n c e to th e g o v e rn m e n t. T here i s apres um pt i on thatse nt ence s w i thi n the gu i del i nes r ange are re as on abl e, se e U ni t ed S t at es v. T al l ey , 43 1 F . 3d 78 4, 78 8 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ), and thi s s ent ence w as atthe bo tt om of thatra ng e. A cc ordi ng l y, i tw as no tpl ai nl y di spropo rt i on at e. W e und er st and the crux of M i chel ’ s c om pl ai ntt o b e thathe w as arre st ed as partof an un derc ov erop er at i on . H i s pl an t o st ea l forty ki l og ra m s of c ocai ne w as do om ed t o fai l ure f

rom the st art , because the cocai ne di d n otexi st . S i nce he never com m i tt ed hi s pl anned rob bery , he fe el s thathe shou l d n otre ce i ve an ext ended se nt ence for thatcr i m e. B utM i chel w as no tse nt ence d for robb ery. H e w as s e n te n c e d f

o rc o n s p ir in g to p o s s e s s ap p r o x im a te ly f o r ty k ilo g r a m s o f

c o c a in e w ith the i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e a nd f orus i ng a nd c a rry i ng af i r e a rm i n r e l a t i on t o adrug tr a f f i c ki ng c r i m e . H e a dm i t s t o c om m i tt i ng both of the s e s e r i ous of

f e ns e s , a nd he w as p u n i sh ed acco rd i n g l y. D I SM I SSED I N PA R T, A FFI R M ED I N PA R T.