## United States Court of App eals

F O R T H E E I G H T H

C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 1- 15 73

__ __ __ __ __ _
Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca, *

* App el le e, *

* App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s

v. * Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e

* East ern Dis tri ct of M is so ur i. Katr in a Eli zab et h Gri ffi n, *

* App el la nt

. *

__ __ __ __ __ _

Su bm it te d: Decem

be r 13 , 20 11 Fi le d: Feb ru ary 9, 2 01 2

__ __ __ __ __ _

Befo re WOL LMAN, MELLOY, and COLLOTON, Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ _

W OLLMAN, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

Katr in a Grif

fin ap pe al s he r co nv ic ti on fo r co ns pi racy to di st rib ut e an d po ss es s wit h th e in te nt to di s t r i b u t e he ro in , i n vi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 1( a)(1 ) an d 84 6,

an d co ns pi racy to la un de r m on ey , in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 19 56

. Bec au se Grif fin ’s
writ te n pl ea ag reem en t co nt ai ns a va li d ap pe al waiv er th at fo recl os es th is ap pe al

, we di sm is s t he ap pe al

.I.

On Sep te m

be r 27

, 20 04

, Grif

fin an d el ev en co -d efen da nt s were in di ct ed in th e Dis tri c t of Ariz on a fo r co ns pi racy to di st rib ut e an d po ss es s wit h th e in te nt to
di st rib ut e h ero in , in vi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 1( a)(1 ) an d 8 46 , and co ns pi racy to
la un de r m on ey , in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S

. C

. § 19 56

. Ult im at el y , th e go ve rn m en t

su cces sf ul ly so u g h t d i sm is sa l of th e Ariz on a in di ct m en t in fav or of ch arg in g th e de fen da nt s i n t he East ern Dis tri ct of M is so ur i fo r th e sa m e o ffen se s.

Grif fin was in di ct ed in th e East ern D i s t r i c t of Mi ss ou ri on Octo be r 7, 20 04

. Sev eral of he r co -d efen da nt s fil ed pr et ria l m ot io ns , ev id en ti ary he a r i n g s on whi ch

were he ld be twee n Decem be r 15

, 20 04

, an d Feb ru ary 9, 20 05

. On Ja nu ary 29

, 20 07

,

a m ag is tra te jud ge is su ed rep or ts an d reco m m en da ti on s reg ard in g th e pr et ria l

m ot io ns

. On Ju ly 18

, 20 07

, th e di st ric t co ur t or d e r e d t he cas e di sm is se d wit ho ut

pr ejud ic e fo r vi ol at io ns of th e Sp eed y Tria l Act. G rif fin ap pe al ed , a rg ui ng th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d by no t di sm is si ng th e cas e wit h pr ejud ic e. W e d i s m is se d he r

ap pe al for la ck of juri sd ic ti on be cau se th e di st ric t co ur t’s or de r di sm is si ng th e cas e wit ho ut pr ejud ic e di d no t co ns ti tu te a “ fin al de ci si on ” w i t h i n t h e m ean in g of 28

U.S.C. § 12 91

. See Uni te d St at es v. Bri dg es , 27 0 F. App ’x 46 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (p er

cu ria m ) (u np ub li sh ed ) (d is m is si ng Bri dg es an d Gri ffi n’s ap pe al ).

O n N o v e mb e r 8, 20 07

, Grif fin was rei nd ic te d in th e East ern Dis tri ct of

Mi ss ou ri f

or th e sa m e of

fen se s as in th e p rev io us ly dis m is se d c as es . Griffi n fi le d a

m ot io n t o d is m is s, al le gi ng a Sp eed y Tria l Act vi ol at io n. Th e d is tri ct co ur t de ni ed 1

th e m ot io n wit h res pe ct to bo th th e 20 04 an d 20 07 East ern Dis tri ct of Mi ss ou ri

in di ct m en ts

.

The Hon or ab le Je an C. Ham il to n, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e East ern 1 Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

-2

-Grif

fin reac he d a pl ea ag reem en t wit h th e go ve rn m en t on Ju ly 9, 20 08

, an d he r ch an ge of pl ea he ari ng oc cu rred on th e sa m e da y

. The pl ea a g r e e men t i nc lu de d a

ge ne ral waiv er of ap pe al

, whi ch pr ov id ed th at th e pa rti es “ waiv e al l rig ht s to ap pe al
al l no n- juri sd ic ti on al is su es in cl ud in g, bu t no t li m it ed to
, an y is su es rel at in g to

pr et ria l m ot io ns , he ari ng s an d di sc ov ery an d an y is su es rel at in g to th e ne go ti at io n,

ta ki ng or acce pt an ce of th e gu il ty pl ea or th e fact ua l ba si s fo r th e pl ea.” Pl ea Agr eem en t at 3. The ge ne ral ap pe al waiv er fu rth er pr ov id ed th at th e pa rti es wou ld

w a i v e an y ap pe ll at e rig ht s co nc ern in g th e se nt en ce, as lo ng as th e di st ric t c o u r t

ap pl ie d th e go ve rn m en t’s se nt en ci ng reco m m en da ti on s co nt ai ne d in th e pl ea

ag reem en t an d se nt en ced Grif fin wit hi n th e a pp li cab le Uni te d St at es Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s (Gu id el in es ) ran ge . Plea Agre em en t at 3-4

.

The pl ea ag reem en t al so co nt ai ne d a sp eci fic pr ov is io n reg ard i n g th e sp eed y tri al is su e:

The de fen da nt fu rth er ag rees th at th is is no t a co nd it io na l pl ea an d th at by pl ead in g gu il ty sh e is wa i v i n g h e r rig ht to a sp eed y tri al an d is wit hd rawi ng he r pr ev io us ly fil ed m ot io n to di smis s th e in st an t in di ct m en t as vi ol at io ns of th e Sp eed y Tria l Act an d Si xt h Am en dm en t. The de fen da nt is th ereb y waiv in g an y rig ht to ap pe al an y is su es rel at ed

to vi ol at io n of th e Sp eed y Tri a l A c t i n th e in st an t cau se an d/ or cau se

nu m be r 4: 04 CR5 72 JC H(FRB ).

Pl ea Ag reem en t at 2.

Grif fin ack no wled ge d at he r ch an ge of pl ea he ari ng th at sh e un de rs to o d t he
waiv er of he r ap pe ll at e rig ht s. The di st ric t co ur t ac c e p t e d he r gu il ty pl ea an d

se nt en ced Grif

fin to 15 1 m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t, fiv e y ears of su pe rv is ed rel eas e, an d

a $2 00 sp eci al as se ss m en t. G r i f fin di d no t ap pe al

, bu t sh e la te r fil ed a m ot io n to

va cat e, se t as id e or co rrec t se n t e n c e u n d e r 28 U.S.C. § 22 55

, al le gi ng th at sh e ha d

rece iv ed in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l. Her clai m s in cl ud ed co un se l’s fail ur e to

-3

-(1 ) fil e a n ot ic e o f ap pe al

, (2 ) ob ject to fal se in fo rm at io n in th e pl ea agre em en t, and (3 ) ad vi se Grif

fin of th e na tu re an d ci rcu m st an ces of th e pl ea ag reem en t. The di st ric t

co ur t ag reed th at c o u n s el ’s fai lu re to fil e a no ti ce of ap pe al co ns ti tu te d in effe ct iv e

as si st an ce, an d th us it gr an te d Grif fin ’s m ot io n on th at ba si s, whi le de nyin g wit ho ut

pr e ju d i c e th e ot he r in effe ct iv e as si st an ce cl ai m s. The di st ric t co ur t or de red th at
Grif fin be res en te nc ed

, ap pa ren tl y t o e n a b le he r to pu rs ue th e in st an t ap pe al

. At

res en te nc in g, Gr i f

f i n ’s te rm of im

pr is on m en t was red uc ed to 12 0 m on th s. Grif fin
th en fil ed a ti m el y ap pe al ba se d on al le ge d vi ol at io ns of th e Sp eed y Tria l Act an d he r

co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht to a sp eed y tri al un de r th e Si xt h Am en dm en t to th e Uni te d St at es Co ns ti tu ti on

. The go ve rn m en t arg ue s fo r di sm is sa l ba se d on th e te rm s of th e ap pe al
waiv er.

II.

“ As a g en eral rul e, a d efen da nt is all owe d t o wai ve ap pe ll at e ri gh ts .” Uni te d

St at es v. And is

, 33 3 F.3 d 88 6, 88 9 ( 8 t h Ci r. 20 03 ) (en ba nc ). “ W he n rev ie win g a

pu rp or te d waiv er, we m

us t co nf irm th at th e ap pe al fal ls wit hi n th e sc op e of th e waiv er

an d th at bo th th e w a i v e r a nd pl ea ag reem en t were en te red in to kn owi ng ly an d

vo lu nt ari ly.” Id

. at 88 9- 90

. “ Eve n whe n th es e co nd it io ns are m et
, ho wev er, we wil l

no t en fo rce a waiv er where to do so wou ld res ul t in a m is carr ia ge of jus ti ce.” Id . at
89 0. W e pr ev io us ly ha ve he ld th at a gu il ty pl ea waiv es ap pe al of “ th e al le ge d de ni al
of a sp eed y tri al .” Uni te d St at es v. Lee, 50 0 F.2d 58 6, 58 7 (8t h Cir. 19 74 ); see al so Tay lo r v. Uni te d St at es , 20 4 F.3 d 82 8, 82 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 00 ) (p er cu ria m ) (h ol di ng th at
de fen da nt waiv ed rig ht to rai se an y arg um en t ba se d on vi ol at io n of th e Sp eed y Tria l
Act when pl ead in g gu il ty) (ci ti ng Uni te d Stat es v. Co x, 9 85 F.2 d 42 7, 43 3 (8t h Cir.

19 93 )); Sp eed v. Uni te d St at es , 51 8 F.2 d 75

, 77 (8 th Ci r. 19 75 ) (n ot in g th at “ it is well

se tt le d th at a pl ea of gu il ty waiv es an y cl ai m to de ni al of a sp eed y tri al ”) (ci t a ti on

om it te d)

.

-4

-W e co nc lu de th at Grif fin ’s pl ea a g r e em en t was kn owi ng ly an d vo lu nt ari ly

en te red in to

. Pri or to co nc lu di ng th at Grif fin kn owi ng ly an d vo lu nt ari ly en te red in to
the ple a ag re em ent, th e di st ric t co ur t th or ou gh ly qu es ti on ed Grif fin ab ou t he r de ci si on

to en te r in to th e ag reem en t an d waiv e he r ap pe ll at e rig ht s. See And is

, 33 3 F.3 d at
89 0- 91 (n ot in g th at “ [o ]ne im po rta nt way a di st ric t co ur t can he lp en su re th at a pl ea

ag reem en t an d co rres po nd in g waiv er are en te red in to kn owi ng ly an d vo lu nt ari ly is

to pr op erl y qu es ti on a de fen da nt ab ou t hi s or he r de ci si on to en te r th at ag reem en t an d
waiv e th e ri gh t t o a pp eal .”).

W e al so co nc lu de th at Griff in ’s a pp eal , wh ic h is ba se d o n t he di st ric t co ur t’s

ru li ng to dism is s th e fir st Mi ss ou ri in di ct m en t wit ho ut pr ejud ic e up on co nc lu di ng th at Sp eed y Tria l Act vi ol at io ns ha d occ ur red

, fal ls wit hi n th e sc op e of bo th he r ge ne ral

an d sp eci fic ap pe al waiv ers

. No ex cep ti on to th e waiv ers ap pl ie s, as th e di st ric t co ur t

ap pl ie d th e go ve rn m en t’s se nt en ci ng reco m m en da ti on s an d G rif

fin rece iv ed a

se nt en ce wi th in th e ap pl ic ab le Gui de li ne s ra ng e.

W e fu rth er co nc lu de th at en fo rci ng th e ap pe al waiv er wou ld no t res ul t in a

m is carr ia ge of jus ti ce. “ [T]his ex cep ti o n is a na rro w o ne

. . . .” And is , 3 33 F.3 d at
89 1. Alt ho ug h we ha ve no t pr ov id ed an ex ha us ti ve li st of th e ci rcu ms t a n c e s t ha t

m ig ht co ns ti tu te a m is carr ia ge of ju s t ic e, we ha ve reco gn iz ed th at a waiv er of

a p p e l l at e rig ht s do es no t pr oh ib it th e ap pe al of an il le ga l se nt en ce, a se nt en ce i n vi ol at io n of th e te rm s of an ag reem en t, an d a cl ai m as se rti ng in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of

co un se l. Id

. Grif

fin was se nt en ced to le ss th an th e st at ut or y m ax im um fo r vi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 1( a)(1 ) an d 84 6 an d 18 U.S.C. § 19 56 , a nd he r se nt en ce di d no t
vi ol at e th e te rm s of th e pl ea ag reem en t. To th e ex te nt th at Grif fin rai se s cl ai m s ba se d

on in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l, we se e no reas on to de pa rt fro m “ ou r us ua l ru le

req ui rin g su ch cl ai m s to be rai se d in a su bs eq ue nt ly fil e d 2 8 U .S.C. § 22 55

pr oc eed in g whe re th e reco rd can be pr op erl y de ve lo pe d.” Uni te d St at es v. Je nn in gs , 66 2 F.3 d 98 8, 9 9 1

- 9 2 ( 8 t h Ci r. 20 11 ) (ci ta ti on s om it te d)

. Bec au se th e di st ric t

co ur t— whe n gr an ti ng Grif fin ’s § 22 55 in effe ct iv e as si st an ce cl ai m co nc ern in g

-5

-c o u n s e l’s fai lu re to fil e a no ti ce of ap pe al —d is m is se d wit ho ut pr ejud ic e Grif fin ’s

rem ai ni ng § 22 55 in effe ct iv e as si st an ce cl ai m s, Grif fin ha s no pe nd in g § 22 55 cl ai m

. Und er th e ci rcu m st an ces , req ui ri n g G r iff in to rai se he r in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of

co un se l cl ai m s by way of an ot he r § 22 55 pr oc eed in g wou ld no t res ul t in a m is carr ia ge of jus ti ce. See Fl o r e s v. Uni te d St at es , No. 97 -8 08 0, 19 97 W L 52 55 96 (8 th Ci r. 19 97 ) (p er cu ria m ) (u np ub li sh ed ) (h ol di ng th at “ a ha be as pe ti ti on whi ch is fil ed aft er

a pr io r pe ti ti on ha s bee n di sm is se d with ou t preju di ce d oe s no t qu al it y as ‘seco nd or

s u c c es si ve ’ ha be as ap pl ic at io n wit hi n th e m ean in g of § 22 55 an d 22 44 (b )”) (ci t i n g McWil li am s v. Co lo rad o, 12 1 F.3 d 57 3 ( 1 0 t h C i r. 19 97 )); se e al so Bl ad e v. Uni te d

St at es , 26 6 F. App ’x 49 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (p er cu r i a m) (u np ub li sh ed ) (n ot in g th at
cl ai m rai se d in pr io r h a b e a s pe ti ti on di sm is se d wit ho ut pr ejud ic e was no t a

“ su cces si ve m ot io n” ba rred by Ant it erro ris m an d Effect iv e Deat h Pen al ty A c t o f

19 96 ).

III.

The ap pe al is di sm is se d.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-6

-