FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT D e c e m be r 22, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ 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 os . 05- 12331 & 05- 12571 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D o c k e t N o s . 0 3 - 0 0 0 9 6 - C R - F T M- 2 9 - DN F 0 3 - 0 0 0 9 6 - C R - F T M- 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 Q U I N C Y M A R Q U I C E W I L L I A M S , a .k .a . Q , a .k .a . Q u in c yM a r q u is W illia m s , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l s f

rom 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 be r22, 2005) B efo re T JO F L A T , C A RN E S an dP R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

O n D e c e m be r24, 2003, Q ui nc yM a r qui c e W i l l i a m s a nd the G ove rnm e nt e xe c ut e d apl e aa gr e e m e nttha tc a l l e d f orW i l l i a m s t o pl e a d gui l tyt o C ountO ne of ath r e e c o u n t in d ic tm e n t, w h ic h c h a r g e dh im w ith c o n s p ir a c yto p o s s e s s w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te 5 0 g r a m s o rm o r e o f c r a c kc o c a in e , in v io la tio n o f 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 6 . T h e p le aa g r e e m e n t c o n ta in e dap r o v is io n w h e r e b yW illia m s e x p lic itly w a i ve d hi s r i ghtt o appe a l hi s s e nt e nc e di r e c t l yorc ol l a t e r a l l yon a nygr ound exce pti n fou r s i tuat i on s: (1) an u pw ar d d eparture by the se nt enci ng j ud ge, (2) a se nt ence abov e the st atut ory m axi m um , (3) ase nt ence i n v i ol at i on of the l aw , apart f r om the U ni t e d S t a t e s S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s ( “ G ui de l i ne s ” ) , or( 4) i f the G o v e rn me n tap p e a l e d th e i mp o s e ds e n t e n c e . O n D e c e mb e r3 1 , 2 0 0 3 , W i l l i a ms pl ed gu i l ty t o C ou ntO ne before am agi stra t e j ud ge; on Janu ary 5, 20 04 , the di stri ct c o u rt a c c e p te d th e p le aa n d a d ju d ic a te dW illia m s g u iltyo f th e C o u n t O n e o f

f e n s e . O n A p ri l 2 8 , 2 0 0 4 , th e d i stri ctco u rtsen t en ced h i m t o p ri so n fo r 2 9 2 m o n th s. A ft erthe t en-dayperi od for t aki ng an appeal expi re d, W i l l i am s s ou gh tan ou t -of- t i m e app ea l pu rs uantt o 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 25 5, on the grou nd thathi s a tt orney de ni e d hi m e f

f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of

c ouns e l byf

a i l i ng t o f

i l e anot i c e of

appe a l . T he di s tr i c tc ourtgr a nt e d hi s m ot i on. R e c or d, V ol . 1 a tT ab 43. I n the or de rgr a nt i ng th e m o t i o n , th e co u rt , fo l l o w i n g th e p ro ced u re o u t l i n ed i n U n i t ed S t at es v . P h i l l i p s, 2 2 5 F. 3 d 1 1 9 8 , 1 2 0 1 ( 1 1 th Ci r . 2 0 0 1 ) , “ r e - s e n t e n c e d ” W i l l i a ms t o th e s a me3

s e n te n c e it im p o s e d o n A p r il 2 8 . W illia m s th e r e a f te rlo d g e dth is ap p e a l, chal l engi ng bo th h i s c on vi ct i on and sent ence . W i l l i am s c hal l enges hi s c on vi ct i on on the grou nd thatthe i nd i ctm entw as in s u f f ic ie n t to in v o k e th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s ju r is d ic tio n o rto p r o v id e h im w ith s u f f ic ie n t n o tic e th a t h e c o n s p ir e dw ith k n o w n a n du n k n o w n in d iv id u a ls . W illia m s a tta c k s h is s e n te n c e o n th e g r o u n d s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ( 1 ) d e n ie dh im due pr oc e s s of

l a w and aS i xth A m e ndm e ntr i ght , a s r e c ogni z e d i n B l a ke l yv. W as hi ng t on , 54 2 U . S . 29 6, 12 4 S . C t . 25 31 , 15 9 L . E d. 2d 40 3 (20 04 ), and U ni t ed S t at es v. B oo ker, 54 3 U . S . 22 0, 12 5 S . C t . 73 8, 16 0 L . E d. 2d 62 1 (20 05 ), w hen i tre s e n te n c e d h im w ith o u t n o tic e , h e a r in g , o rp r e s e n c e o f c o u n s e l a n db a s e do n f a c ts beyond tho se he adm i tt ed, and (2) err on eousl y a do pt ed the pre-s ent ence in v e s tig a tio n r e p o rt’s c a lc u la tio n s o f h is c r im in a l h is to ryp o in ts w h ic h d r a m a tic a lly in c r e a s e d h is c r im in a l h is to ryc a te g o ry . W e c o n s id e rf

ir s t W illia m s ’s c h a lle n g e to h is c o n v ic tio n .

I. G e ne r a l l y , w he the ra n i ndi c tm e nts uf f i c i e nt l ya l l e ge s a n of

f e ns e i s aque s t i on o f la w w h ic h w e r e v ie w d e n o v o . U n ite dS ta te s v . P e a s e , 2 4 0 F .3 d9 3 8 , 9 4 2 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2001) . W he r e , a s he r e , the de f e nda ntc ha l l e nge s the s uf f i c i e nc yof

the i ndi c tm e ntf

orthe f i r s tt i m e on appe a l , “ the i ndi c tm e ntm us tbe he l d s uf f i c i e nt4

unl e s s i ti s s o de f

e c t i ve tha ti tdoe s not , bya nyr e a s onabl e c ons truc t i on, c ha r ge the of f e ns e t o w hi c h [ the de f

e nda nt ] pl e a de d gui l ty . ” I d. a t943. W e c onc l ude tha tC ountO ne of W i l l i a m s ’ s i ndi c tm e ntw a s s uf f i c i e nt b e c au s e it p la in lyin v o k e d th e c o u rt’s ju r is d ic tio n a lle g e dac o n s p ir a c yto d is tr ib u te d ru g s , th e tim e th e c o n s p ir a c yo p e r a te d , a n dth e s ta tu te th e c o n s p ir a c yv io la te d . S e e P e a s e , 240 F . 3d a t943. W e the r e f or e a f f i rm W i l l i a m s ’ s c onvi c t i on. II . W h e n th e d i s tr i c tc o u rt s o f th i s c i r c u i tc o n c l u d e th a ta n o u t - o f - t i me appe a l i n ac r i m i na l c a s e i s w a rr a nt e d a s the r e m e dyi n a§ 2255 pr oc e e di ng, the ys houl d e f f e c ttha tr e m e dyi n the f

ol l ow i ng w a y : ( 1) the c r i m i na l j udgm e ntf r om w hi c h the out - of

- t i m e appe a l i s t o be pe rm i tt e d s houl d be va c a t e d; ( 2) the s a m e s e nt e nc e s houl d the n be r e i m pos e d; ( 3) upon r e i m pos i t i on of tha ts e nt e nc e , the de f

e nda nt s houl d be a dvi s e d of

a l l the r i ght s a s s oc i a t e d w i th a n appe a l f r om a ny cr i m i nal se nt ence ; and (4) the defendantshou l d al so be advi se d that th e tim e f

o rf ilin g an o tic e o f

ap p e a l f r o m th a t r e - im p o s e ds e n te n c e is t en days , w hi ch i s di ct at ed by R ul e 4(b)( 1)(A )( i ) [ of the F eder al R ul es o f A p p ellate P ro ce d u re ]. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. P hi l l i ps , 225 F . 3d a t1201.

“ U nde rthe D ue P r oc e s s C l aus e , ade f e nda nti s gua r a nt e e d the r i ghtt o be p r e s e n t a t a n ys ta g e o f

th e c r im in a l p r o c e e d in g th a t is c r itic a l to its o u tc o m e if h is pr e s e nc e w oul d c ontr i but e t o the f a i rne s s of

the pr oc e dur e . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. P arri sh, 42 7 F . 3d 13 45 , 13 48 (11th C i r. 20 05 )( qu ot at i on om i tt ed). A di stri ctcourt thatprop er l y f

ol l ow s the procedure det ai l ed i n P hi l l i ps by vaca t i ng the ori gi nal5

s e nt e nc e , i m pos i ng the e xa c ts a m e s e nt e nc e , a nd a dvi s i ng the de f e nda ntof the ri gh t s and t i m e l i m i t at i on s a ss oci at ed w i th the appeal , do es no tvi ol at e a de f e nda nt ’ s r i ght s unde rthe D ue P r oc e s s C l aus e . I d. T he r e c or d i n thi s c a s e e s t abl i s he s tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourt– i n va c a t i ng the o r ig in a l s e n te n c e , r e - s e n te n c in g W illia m s to th a t s a m e s e n te n c e , an da d v is in g h im of hi s r i gh tt o app ea l – corre ct l y f ol l ow ed the procedure det ai l ed i n P hi l l i ps. S ee P a rr i s h, 427 F . 3d a t1348. I n s hort , the di s tr i c tc ourtdi d notde nyW i l l i a m s due p r o c e s s o f

la w . II I. A n app ea l w ai ver i s val i d i f kno w i ng l y and vo l un t ar i l y m ade. W e r evi ew s uc h w a i ve rde novo. P e a s e , 240 F . 3d a t942. A “ [ w ] a i ve rw i l l be e nf or c e d i f the gove rnm e ntde m ons tr a t e s e i the r : ( 1) the di s tr i c tc ourts pe c i f i c a l l yque s t i one d the d e f e n d a n t ab o u t th e w a iv e rd u r in g th e p le ac o llo q u y , o r( 2 ) th e r e c o r dc le a r ly show s thatthe defendantotherw i se un ders t oo d the ful l si gn i fi cance of the w ai ver. ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. G r i na r d- H e nry , 399 F . 3d 1294, 1296 ( 11th C i r . ) , c e rt . de ni e d. 125 S . C t . 22 79 (200 5)(quo t at i on om i tt ed). A w ai ver of the ri gh tt o app ea l can cov er

“ di ff i cul tor debat abl e l egal i ss ues or e ven b l at anterror, ” i d. , and i ncl ud e aw ai ver of B l a ke l ya nd B ooke ri s s ue s . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. G r i na r d- H e nry , 399 F . 3d 1294, 1 2 9 6 ( 1 1 th C i r . ) , c e rt . d e n i e d , 1 2 5 S . C t . 2 2 7 9 ( 2 0 0 5 ) . Gi v e n th i s s t a t e o f th e l a w,6

th e o n lyq u e s tio n le f

t f o ru s to d e c id e is w h e th e rth e is s u e s W illia m s ’s r a is e s f a ll w ith in a n yo f

th e p le aa g r e e m e n t’s e x c e p tio n s . I d . T he r e c or d s how s tha tthe m a gi s tr a t e j udge e xpl a i ne d the s i gni f i c a nc e of the appeal w ai ver, qu es t i on ed W i l l i am s c on ce rni ng the appeal w ai ver, and con fi rm ed hi s und er st andi ng of the w ai ver. G i ven thi s, w e c on cl ud e thatW i l l i am s m ade a kn ow i ng and v ol un t ary w ai ver of hi s r i gh tt o app ea l hi s s ent ence un der a l l bu tthe f o u rc i r c u ms t a n c e s me n t i o n e d s u p r a , n o n e o f w h i c h ap p l i e s h e r e . I n s u m, W illia m s h a s w a iv e d h is r ig h t to ap p e a l w h e th e rth e d is tr ic t c o u rt d e n ie dh im r ig h ts r e c o g n iz e d b yB la k e lya n d B o o k e r , a n dw h e th e rth e c o u rt in c o rr e c tlyc o m p u te d h is c r im in a l h is to ryp o in ts . AF F I R ME D.