The Ho norab le E dm und A. Sarg us, J r., United State s D istrict Judg e for the S outhern D istrict of * Ohio , s itting by

des ig nation. NO T REC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 06a0690n.06 Filed: September

14, 2006
Case No. 05- 4148 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT ) UNITED STAT ES O F AMERICA, ) ) P lai nt iff-A ppe lle e , ) ON AP P EA L F RO M THE U NI TED ) STATE S DIST RICT COURT F OR ) T H E NO RT H E RN DI S T RI CT O F v. ) OHI O ) ) MICHAEL LEE JOHNSON, ) ) Defendan t-Appellant. )
BEFORE: M ARTIN and GILMAN, Cir cuit Judges; SARGU S, District Judge. *

SARGU S, District Judge. Michae l L ee Johnson pled guilty to three c ounts of
arme d bank robbe ry , 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) a nd (d), a nd one count of

using or car rying a firea rm duri ngand

in r e latio n to a

c ri me of vio le nc e , 1 8 U .S. C. § 92 4( c ). On re mand fr om t his Court , the district court sente nced Johnson to ninety -seve n months of imprisonment on the bank robber y char g es and a

consec utive sentenc e of e ighty -four months of imprisonment on the fi re arm c ha rg e , f oll ow e d b y

nin e ty -s ix months of

su pe rv ise d r e le a se . Johns on no w a pp e a ls h is sentenc e for

failure to establish a fa ctual basis for the fire arm c harg e, inef

fec tive assistance of counsel, a nd for Bo ok

e r jud ic ia l f

a c t- fi nd inge rr or s.-2- I. Acc ordingto the fac ts within hi s plea a g ree ment, J ohnson planned a nd participated in the robbe ry of a F irstar B ank in Cleveland, O hio on October 25, 1999, and
rec eived a

pproxi mately

$21,626 from the r obbery . On Dec ember 10, 1999, J ohnson planned and par ticipated in the robbe ry

of a K ey Ba nk in Cleveland. Johns on provided c o-par ticipant Andre Har

ris with a .38 ca liber handgun, which Ha rris bra ndished at the De cembe r 10, 1999, robber y . This robbery

yielded $9,309 to the thre e par ticipants. Finally , on Dec ember 17, J ohnson planned a

nd participated in the robbe ry of a Char ter One Ba

nk in Cleveland, in which the three participa

nts successf

ully stole $25,013. This tim e, Johnson provided Terre nce W i l l i am s w i tha

. 3 8 c a l i b e r

h an d g un , w h i c hw a s b r an d i s h e d d ur i n gth e r o b b e r

y. J ohnson was cha

rg ed, alongwith his two co-def endants, with three counts of
arme d bank robbe ry

and two counts of br andishing a fire arm duringthose robber ies. On September 21, 2000, Johnson pled guilty to the three counts of bank r obbery and one c ount of brandishinga fire arm, while the g overnme nt dismi ssed the sec ond count of bra ndishing ba sed on the written plea

ag ree ment betwee n J ohnson and the g overnme nt. On Dec ember 8, 2000, the district court ca lculated Johnson’s combined offe nse leve l as twenty -eig ht for the thre e bank
ro b b er i es . W i tha c ri m i n al h i s t o ry ca t ego ry o f II I , th i s re s u l t edi na s en t en ci n g gu i d el i n es ra n ge of 97 -1 21 months . T he g un c ha rg e c arr ie d w ithit a

statut or y min imum of

e ig hty -f our m on ths in prison. 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) (A)( ii). As a re sult of these ca lculations, the district court sentenc ed Johnson t o ninety -seve n months of imprisonment for the bank r obberie s and an
a d d i t i o n a l e i g h ty- f

o ur m o n th s o f

i mp r i s o n m e n tf

o r th e b r an d i s h i n gc h ar g e , f o l l o w e d b y n i n e tysix months of supervised re lease
.-3- J ohnson filed an untimely notice of a

ppeal to this Court on J uly 20, 2001. On September 20, 2001, this Court dismiss ed Johnson’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. On De c e mbe r 4 , 2 00 1, John so n f ile d a mot ion in t he dis tr ic t c ourt

to v a c ate , s e t a sid e , o r c or re c t hi s
se nte nc e ba se d o n f

our gro un ds , in c lud ingine ff e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e of c ouns e l f or fa ilure to f

ile notice of a

ppeal. See28 U. S.C. § 2 25 5. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt g ra nte d Johns on ’s mot ion

wi th
re sp e c t to his ine ff

e c tiv e -a ssi sta

nc e -o f- c ouns e l c la im f

or fa ilure to f

ile no tic e of

an a pp e a l w hil e denying the rema ining grounds on April 24, 2003. It then declined to issue a Certificate of Appea lability . J ohnson filed an a ppeal to this Court on May 2, 2003, and this Court gr anted a Certificate of Appe alability on October

2, 2003. On June 27 , 2 00 5, thi s Co ur t is su e d a n unp ub lis he d d e c isi on

ho ldi ngtha

t it a g a in lacke d jurisdiction to hear Johnson’s appeal. Johnson v. U nited States , N o . 0 3
- 3 7 5 0 , 2 0 0 5 WL 15 06 05 0 ( 6th

Cir . Jun e 27 , 2 00 5) (u

np ub lis he d) . T his Court

he ld t hat th e dis tr ic t c ourt

sh ou ld have, upon grantingthe motion, vacate d the sentenc e imposed and r esente nced Johnson on the orig inal conviction to restar t the time for an a

ppeal. Id. at* 4 (c i t i n g Rosinski v. United States , 459 F.2d 59 ( 6th Cir. 1972) (per curiam). After

this Court di smissed the appea l, the district court c omplied with our instructions on August 22, 2005 a nd imposed an identica l sentence as th ati nJ o h n s o n ’s o ri gi n al s en t en ci n g h ea ri n g.

J ohnson filed a timely

notice of a

ppeal to this Court on Aug ust 29, 2005. II. On appe al, J ohnson first contends that the district c ourt violated Apprendi v. New Jerse y , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), by judicially finding that he had br andished a firea rm, resultingin a
se ve n- y e ar m and ator

y min imum se nte nc e un de r 1 8 U .S. C. § 92 4( c ). John so n a lso a sse rt s in thi s-4-

same a ssignment of

err or that his trial counsel wa s constitutionally ineffe ctive for

permitting him to plead g uilty

to a cha rg e for which the ne cessa

ry fac tual predic ates ha d not been established and to whic h J ohnson had not admitted. In his second assig nment of er ror, Johnson alleg es that the district cour t erre d in assessingpoints in determining the se ntencingg uidelines rang e base d on the use of a firea rm and the a

mount of funds stolen in the bank robbe ries. As to the first assig nment of er ror, be cause J ohnson failed to ente r an obje ction befor e the district cour

t, we re view for

plain err or. United States v. Sande rs, 404 F.3d 980, 987 (6 th C ir . 2 00 5) . With r e g ard to h is c la im that th e dis tr ic t c ourt imp ro pe rl y

c a lc ulate d h is g uid e lin e s se nte nc ingra

ng e , th is C ourt

de te rm ine s w he the r t

he g uid e lin e ra

ng e wa s c or

re c tly deter mined, whether

g uideline depa

rture issues w ere considere d, and whe ther, a fter c onsidering 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the se ntence imposed was re asonable
. United States v. Mc Bride , 434 F.3d 470, 476 (6th Cir. 2006). III .

The issues Johnson raises on appea l are fore closed by the terms of the plea ag ree ment. The plea

ag ree ment, the validity

of which is not cha lleng ed by J ohnson, included a
no n- bin din gre c omm e nd atio n to the dis tr ic t c ourt that th e c omb ine d o ff

e ns e le ve l f

or Counts One, Thr ee a

nd Five w as twenty -eig ht. The plea ag ree ment also rec ited that, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), the district c ourt was r equire d to impose an additional, consec utive sentenc e of
se ve n ye ars , s inc e John so n w a s p le a din gg uil ty to b ra nd ish inga

fi re arm in t he c ours e of

a c ri me of violence . The sente nce imposed by the district court wa s in acc ord with the re commendations
se t f or th i n th e ple a

a g re e me nt. The plea ag ree ment also containe d the followingprovision:We d o no te in p as si ngth at

th e sam e pl ea

a g re em en t i nd

uc ed th e g ov er

nm en t t o v ol un tari ly 1 dism iss a secon d firearm s ch arg e un der 1 8 U .S. C. § 924(c ). Had he been conv icted o f this alleg ed offense, Johnson wou ld hav e rece iv ed an ad ditional, con secutiv e tw enty - fiv e y ear sentence. -5- 16. The de fenda

nt, rec og nizi ngthat in limi ted circ umstances he could have the rig ht to appeal the se ntence imposed, here by knowing ly , voluntarily , and expressly waives the rig ht to appeal his conviction and sentenc e on any g round, includingany

appea l rig ht confe rre d by

Title 18, United States Code, Section 3742, provided he is sentence d within the guide line rang e dete rmined by the Court pursuant to the ter ms of this plea ag ree ment and the Court does not depar

t upward. The g overnme nt contends that the wa iver provision pre vents revie w of the issues r aised by J ohnson. We ag ree .

T h i s C o urth as re p ea t ed l y en fo rc edp ro v i s i o n s o f p l eaagr ee m en t s wa i v i n g a defe ndant’s rig ht to appeal, unless the se ntence imposed exceede d the statutory maxi mum or the sentenc e wa s imposed in violation of the Const itution. Un ite d S tates v . Ca ru the rs , No. 05-5307, – F.3d – , 2006 WL2320942, (6th Cir. Aug . 11, 2006). In this case, the se ntence imposed was in acc ord with the re commendation made in the plea a g ree ment by the par ties to the district court. Johnson i s bound by his plea agree ment, there by barr ing f urther r eview. 1 IV. Ba sed upon the for eg oing, w e AF F IRM the de c isi on of the dis tr ic t c ourt .