FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T SEPTEMBER 7, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 15 04 4 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 9- cr-2 06 73 -DLG-23 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff - App el le e, vers us ARTHUR SMITH, a.k .a. Co -Ch ie f, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt- App el la nt .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal s fr om

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Sep te m be r 7, 2 01 1) Befo re TJ OFLAT, CARNES andFAY, Circ ui t J ud ge s. CARNES, Ci rcu itJu dg e:Arth urSm it h app eal s h is 12 7- m on th sen te nc e aft er p le ad in g g ui lt y to po ss es si on wit h i nt en t t o d is tri bu te 50 gra m s o r m or e o f co cai ne ba se , in vi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (a)( 1) . He con te nd s t ha t anin te rv en in g d eci si on sh ows th atth e di st ric t co urt erredby fail in g t o app ly the Fai r Sen te nc in g Actof 2 01 0 (F SA) in de te rm in in g h is sen te nc e. The g ov ern m en t re sp on ds th at , reg ard le ss of t he m eri t of Sm it h’s co nt en ti on , he wai ve d h is rig htto ap pe al hi s s en te nc e an d t ha t wai ve r co ve rs th is cla im . W e h ol d t ha t FS A cla im s, l ik e an y ot he r type o f se nt en ce cl ai m , can be waiv edby a kn owi ng an d v ol un ta ry ap pe al waiv er. I. Sm it h was arre st edin Aug us t 2 00 9 fo ll owi ng a two -y ear g ov ern m en t in ve st ig at io n o f a dru g d is tri bu ti on rin g o pe rat in g i n s ou th ern Flo rid a. He was
na m edin 14 di ffer en t co un ts of a43 -co un t m ul ti -d efen da ntin di ct m en t. He
en te redin to a pl ea ag reem en t wi th th e g ov ern m en t o n J un e 7 , 20 10 , agr eei ng to pl eadgu il ty to o ne co un t o f po ss es si on with i nt en t t o d is tri bu te 50 gra m s o r m or e of co cai ne ba se . The p le a ag reem en t co nt ai ne d awaiv er o f Sm it h’s ri gh t t o app eal an y se nt en ce t ha t was im

po se d o r th e m an ne r in whi ch itwas i m po se d, “ un le ss th e se nt en ce ex ceed s t he m ax im um pe rm it te d b y

st atut e o r is th e res ul t o f an up ward de pa rtu re fro m

th e g ui de li ne ran ge ,” orth e g ov ern m en t i ts el f ap pe al edth e 2se nt en ce. Sm it h a gr eedto reque stth atth e d is tri ctco urt “ en te r a s pe ci fic fin di ng ”

th atth e wai ve r was kn owi ng an d v ol un ta ry . Dur in g t he pl ea co ll oq uy, whi ch was c on du ct edon Ju ne 7, 2 01 0, the co urt sp ok e with S m it h s pe ci fic al ly abo utth e se nt en ce ap pe al waiv er i n h is pl ea ag reem en t. The co urt i nf orm edSm it h t ha t h e o rd in ari ly w ou ldha ve th e ri gh t t o ap pe al th e se nt en ce i m

po se d, b utth athe was g iv in g up o r wai vi ng hi s ri gh t t o ap pe al un le ss th e se nt en ce ex ceed edth e m ax im um all owe d b y

st atut e, res ul te d fro m anup wardde pa rtu re fro m th e g ui de li ne s rang e, orth e g ov ern m en t el ect edto ap pe al . The co urt em

ph as iz edth atth os e were t he on ly circu m st an ces un de r whi ch he wou ldbe ab le to ap pe al hi s s en te nc e. The c ou rt t he n a sk edSm it h wh ethe r he
un de rs to odall th is , andhe rep li edth athe di d. Atth e en d o f th e h eari ng th e co urt
m ad e a s pe ci fic fin di ng th atth e p le a ag reem en t was kn owi ng an d v ol un tary . Sm it h’s p res en te nc e in ve st ig at io n re po rt d et erm in edth athi s t ot al off en se le ve l was 31 an d h is cri m in al hi st ory cat eg ory was II . The PSR

als o n ot edth atth e
m in im um term of i m pr is on m en t u nd er 2 1 U.S.C. § 84 1( b) (1 )(A) (2 00 6) was t en y ears an d t he m ax im

um term was l ife . Bas edonhi s t ot al off en se lev el an d h is cri m in al hi st ory , Sm ith’s g ui de li ne s ra ng e was 12 1 t o 1 51 m on th s. Sm it h fi le d s ev eral ob

jecti on s t o t he PSR, i nc lu di ng on e arg ui ng th athe was en ti tl edto be sen te nc edun de r th e Fai r Sen te nc in g Actof 2 01 0, Pub. L. No. 1 11
- 322 0, 1 24 Sta t. 2 37 2 (2 01 0) , ena ct edon Aug us t 3 , 20 10 , whi ch was a fte r Sm it h’s

cri m in al co nduc t o ccu rredbu t b efo re h e was sen te nc edforth atco nduc t. Sm it h arg ue d t ha t i f th e co urt ap pl ie d t he FSA h e wou ldbe subjec t t o am in im um se nt en ce o f 5 years in st eadof 1 0 years, an d t o am ax im um sen te nc e o f 40 y ears in st eadof l ife , andhe ask edth e co urt t o s en te nc e h im to a te rm of 5 y ears . At t he sen te nc e h eari ng th atco nc lu de d o n Oct ob er 6 , 20 10 , th e co urt
se nt en cedSm it h t o 1 27 m on th s, wh ic h was jus t 6 m on th s m or e th anth e b ot to m of hi s g ui de li ne s ra ng e o f 12 1 t o 1 51 m on th s. In do in g s o, i t re jecte d S m it h’s arg um en t t ha t the FSA ap pl ie d, co nc lu di ng th atun de r th e la w in effe ctat t ha t t im e th e FSA d idno t ap pl y

to Sm it h’s ca se . The co urt d idno te , ho wev er, tha t t he re
m ig htbe “ fu rth er d ev el op m en ts ” o n t ha t i ss ue inth e n ear f utur e. Not wit hs ta nd in g hi s ap pe al waiv er, Sm ith app eal ed
. The furth er d ev el op m en ts th atth e d is tri ctco urt t ho ug htm ig hthapp endi d happ enni ne m on th s af

te r Sm it h’s s en te nc e h eari ng , when th is Co urt i ss ue d i ts de ci si on in Uni te d S ta te s v . Rojas , 64 5 F .3d12 34 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ). The R ojas de ci si on he ldth atth e FSA i s ap pl ic ab le to de fen dant s wh os e cri m in al co nduc t
oc cu rredbe fo re t he FSA’s Aug us t 3 , 20 10 en act m en t b utwho were n otsen te nc ed
un ti l af te r th atda te . Id. at12 36 , 12 40 . Sm it h fi ts in to th atcat eg ory of d efen da nt s. II.
4The pro bl em for Sm it h i s t he sen te nc e ap pe al waiv er h e en te red . Rul e 1 1 o f th e Fed eral Ru le s o f Cri m in al Pro cedur e rec og ni zes th e en fo rceabi li ty of se nt en ce ap pe al waiv ers by pro vi di ng th at“ th e co urt m us t i nf orm th e d efen da ntof, a nd de te rm in e th atth e d efen da ntun de rs ta nd s, . . . th e te rm s o f an y pl ea-a gr eem en t pr ov is io n wai vi ng th e ri gh t t o app eal or t o c ol la te ral ly atta ckth e se nt en ce.” Fe d. R. Cri m . P. 11 (b )(1 )(N). W e h av e co ns is te nt ly enfo rcedap pe al waiv ers , acco rd in g to th ei r te rm s, wh ere the di st ric t co urt “ sp eci fic al ly que st io ne d [t he de fen da nt ] du rin g t he pl ea co ll oq uy abo utth e ap pe al waiv er, ad equa te ly exp la in edth e si gn ifi can ce o f th e ap pe al waiv er, an d c on firm edth at[th e d efen da nt ] un de rs to od th e fu ll si gn ifi can ce o f th e ap pe al waiv er.” Un it edSta te s v . Grin ard -Hen ry , 39 9 F.3 d 1 29 4, 1 29 6– 97 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ); s ee al so Uni te d S ta te s v . Bas co m b, 4 51 F.3d 12 92 , 12 94 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ); Un it edSta te s v . Bro wn, 4 15 F.3d12 57 , 12 72 (11 th Ci r. 20 05 ); Un it edSta te s v . Fry e, 40 2 F .3d11 23 , 11 29 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ); Wil li am s v. Un it edSta te s, 3 96 F.3d13 40 , 13 42 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ); Un it edSta te s v . Rub bo , 39 6 F .3d13 30 , 13 35 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ); Un it edSta te s v . W eav er, 2 75 F.3d13 20 , 13 33 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ); Un it edSta te s v . Peas e, 24 0 F .3d93 8, 9 42 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ); Uni te d S ta te s v . Buc ha na n, 1 31 F.3d10 05 , 10 08 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ); Un it edSta te s v . Bu sh ert , 99 7 F .2d13 43 , 13 51 (11 th Cir . 19 93 ). III.
5Und er thi s C ou rt’s h ol di ng in Ro jas, the Fai r Sen te nc in g Actwou ldap pl y to Sm ith’s ca se be cau se he was s en te nc edonOcto be r 6, 2 01 0, two m on th s af te r th e en act m en t o f th e FSA o n Au gu st3, 2 01 0. Se e 64 5 F .3dat 1 23 6, 1 24 0. Were Sm ith t o b e res en te nc edun de r th e Act , he wo ul d fa ce a 6 0- m on th m an da to ry
m in im um sen te nc e in st eadof t he 12 0- m on th m in im um sen te nc e th atth e d is tri ct
co urt u se d i n c al cu la ti ng hi s s en te nc e. Co m pare 2 1 U.S.C. § 84 1( b) (1 )(A)(i ii )(2 00 6) , with § 84 1( b) (1 )(A)(i ii ) (2 01 0) . Sm it h a ls o c on te nd s t ha t
un de r th e FSA h is ba se off en se lev el wou ldbe reduc ed , res ul ti ng in a lo wer se nt en ci ng gu id el in es ran ge . Thatis far fr om ob vi ou s, b ecau se Sm it h’s b as e of fen se lev el was c al cu la te d o n the ba si s o f po wde r co cai ne , no t cr ackco cai ne . W e wil l, h owe ve r, as su m e th atun de r th e FSA Sm it h wo ul d h av e h ada lo wer b as e of fen se lev el , a lo wer g ui de li ne s ra ng e, an d alo wer s en te nc e. Thatass um pt io n do es no t m at te r. It d oe s n otm atte r be cau se Sm it h’s kno win g a ndvo lu nt ary ap pe al ag reem en t
co nt ai ne d o nl y

th ree e xc ep ti on s. No ne of t ho se th ree e xc ep ti on s i s ap pl ic ab le he re: Sm it h was no t s en te nc edab ov e th e st atut ory m ax im um , hi s s en te nc e was no t th e res ul t o f an up wardde pa rtu re fro m th e g ui de li ne s ra ng e, an d t he go ve rn m en t di d n otap pe al . ThatSm it h n eg ot ia te d a way hi s ri gh t t o app eal anis su e th ata la te r de ci si on in di cat es ha s m eri t d oe s n otaffec t o uran al y si s o f ei th er t he va li di ty of hi s 6ap pe al waiv er o r it s ef fect . As we ex pl ai ne d i n Un it edSta te s v . Howl e, 16 6 F .3d 11 66 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ), a v al idap pe al waiv er i nc lu de s n oton ly a waiv er o f th e rig htto ap pe al di ffi cu ltor d eb at ab le leg al is su es bu t al so “ a wai ve r of th e ri gh t t o ap pe al bl at an t erro r.” Id . at 1 16 9. A wai ve r wou ldbe wort hl es s i f itco ve redon ly is su es th atlac ke d m eri t. “ Whi le itm ay ap pe ar u nju stto all ow cr im in al de fen da nt s to ba rg ai n a way

m eri to rio us ap pe al s, s uc h i s t he ne ces sa ry co ns eque nc e o f a syste m in whi ch th e ri gh t t o app eal m ay be free ly trad ed .” Howl e, 16 6 F .3dat 11 69
. Oth erwi se , th e g ov ern m en t wo ul d h av e le ss to ga in fro m ap pe al waiv ers , an d t he les s the go ve rn m en t h as to ga in fro m th em th e le ss waiv ers wil l b e worth to de fen da nt s wh o d eal . Or, as we h av e p utitbe fo re, an ap pe al waiv er i s o f va lu e to a de fen da nt“be cau se itis an ot he r ch ip th e d efen da ntcan bri ng to th e b arg ai ni ng tabl e an d t rad e fo r ad di ti on al co nc es si on s fr om th e g ov ern m en t,” a ndan yth in g t ha t di m in is he s t he va lu e o f th e ch ip to th e g ov ern m en t d im in is he s i ts tra di ng va lu e to a d efen da nt . Bas co m

b, 4 51 F.3dat 1 29 4 (quo ti ng Bu ch an an , 13 1 F .3dat 1 00 8)
. Barg ai ns ha ve to be ne fitbo th pa rti es or t he re wi ll be no th in g t o b arg ai n abo ut . 1
After this opini on was wr itten, the g overnme nt filed a motion to withdraw its previously 1 filed brief , which had a

rgued that the a

ppeal wa iver a

pplies, to vacate the sente nce, a nd to rema nd for r esente ncingunder the decision in United States v. Rojas, 645 F.3d 1234 ( 11th Cir. 2011). The motion admits that the sentenc ing a ppeal wa iver doe s apply

but states that the g overnme nt has now “de termined that it is appropriate under the circ umstances to for eg o relianc e upon the appe al waive r provision in this case.” 7AFFIRMED.

The primar

y circ umstance c ited in the g overnme nt’s motion is that Attorney Gene ral Er ic Holder ha s chang ed the De partment of Justice’s policy on whether

the Fa ir SentencingAct applies to ca ses in which the de fenda nt was sentenc ed af

ter e nactment of

that leg islation. There has not, howeve r, bee n any chang e in the law c oncer ning se ntence appea l waiver s, and it is on the basis of the w aiver

that we a re de cidingthis case. Sentenc e appe al waive rs serveinterests of the judiciary

as we ll as interests of the g overnme nt and def endants. See United States v. Ba scomb, 451 F.3d 1292, 1296–97 ( 11th Cir. 2006) (intere sts of the g overnme nt and defe ndants); cf

. Bla ckledg e v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 71, 97 S.C t. 1621, 1627 (1977) (r ecognizi ng that plea ba

rg ains bene fit all conce rned, inc luding the judicia ry ). And onc e an a

ppeal a rrives in this Court i t is our responsibility to see that it is decided c orre ctly under the law. F or these rea sons, the g overnme nt’s motion is denied. 8