# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 6- 42 73

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Dio nn e T. Acke rle y

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __

App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t
fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - Sp rin gf ie ld

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Sep te m

be r 27 , 20 18

Fi le d: Decem

be r 17 , 20 18

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re LOKEN, BENTO N, and SHEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

SHEPHERD, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

Dio nn e Ack erl ey en te red in to a writ te n pl ea a g r e em en t wit h th e go ve rn m en t

pu rs ua nt to whi ch sh e pl ed gu il ty to on e co un t of co ns pi racy to di st rib ut e 10 0 gr am s

or m or e of he ro in

, in vi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 1( a)(1 ), (b )(1 )(B)

, an d 84 6. Su bjec t

to cert ai n ex cep t i o n s , th e ag reem en t st ip ul at ed th at

, in ex ch an ge fo r Ack erl ey ’s

co op erat io n, an y ne w in fo rm at i o n Ack erl ey m ig ht pr ov id e ab ou t he r own cri m in al

co nd uc t wou ld no t be us ed ag ai ns t he r in th e de te rm in at io n o f he r ap pl ic ab leSen te nc in g Gu i d e l i n es ran ge or th e de ci si on to de pa rt ab ov e he r ap pl ic ab le ran ge

.

The ag reem en t al so co nt ai ne d a waiv er of ap pe ll at e rig ht s. Prio r to se nt en ci ng , t he

go ve rn m en t fil ed a m ot io n to de pa r t d o w n w a r d fro m th e ap pl ic ab le ran ge , whi ch

st at ed

, in rel ev an t pa rt, th at in fo rm at io n Ack erl ey pr ov id e d a i d e d in es ta bl is hi ng a

ba se of fen se le ve l fo r he r se nt en ce. At se nt en ci ng , th e go ve rn m en t rei te rat ed th at

Ack erl ey ’s co op erat io n he lp ed es ta bl is h a ba se of fen se le v e l f

o r h er se nt en ce.

Sen t. Tr. 8

, ECF No. 29 5. The di st ric t co ur t 1 ul ti m at el y se nt en ced Ack erl ey to 23 4

m on th s im

pr is on m en t. Ack erl ey co nt en ds fo r t h e fir st ti m e on ap pe al th at th e

go ve rn m en t br each ed th e pl ea ag reem en t be cau se it pr ov id ed he r se lf- in cri m in at in g

pr of fere d st at em en ts to th e pr ob at io n of fic e in or de r to su p p o r t t h e dr ug qu an ti ty

cal cu la ti on s co nt ai ne d in th e pr es en te nc e in ve st ig at io n rep or t an d to es ta bl is h a ba se

of fen se le ve l fo r he r se nt en ce. In res po ns e, th e go ve rn m en t arg ue s Ac k erl ey ha s

fai le d to m eet he r bu rd en un de r pl ai n- erro r rev ie w an d th us th e ap pe al waiv er sh ou ld

be en fo rced an d h er ap pe al di sm is se d. Hav in g ju ris di ct io n u nd er 28 U.S.C. § 12 91

an d 1 8 U.S.C. § 37 42 (a), 2 we en fo rce t he ap pe al waiv er an d d is m is s t he ap pe al

.

I.

G e n eral ly, “ a de fen da nt is al lo wed to waiv e ap pe ll at e rig ht s.” Uni te d St at e s

v. Lov el ace , 56 5 F.3 d 1 0 8 0

, 10 84 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. And is

, 3 3 3 F.3 d 88 6, 88 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ) (en ba nc )); se e al so 1A Ch arl es Al a n Wr i g h t &

And rew D. Leip ol d, Fed eral Prac ti ce an d Pro ced ur e § 18 0 (4 th ed

. 20 08 ) (“ A pl ea

1 The Hon or ab le Ro se a n n A. Ketc hm ark

, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e W es te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

2 Ack erl ey ’s waiv er of ap pe ll at e rig ht s do es no t affe ct ou r juri sd ic ti on

. See Uni te d S ta te s v. Lov el ace , 5 65 F.3 d 10 80 , 1 08 3 (8t h C ir. 2 00 9) ; acco rd Uni te d

St at es v. Sh em ira ni

, 80 2 F.3 d 1, 3 (D.C. Ci r. 20 15 ); Uni te d St at es v. Co m bs

, 65 7 F.3 d

56 5, 57 0 (7 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (p er cu ria m ); Uni te d St at es v. Gwin ne tt

, 48 3 F.3 d 20 0, 20 3 (3 d Ci r. 20 07 ); Uni te d St at es v. St or y , 43 9 F.3 d 22 6, 23 0- 31 (5 th Ci r. 20 06 ); Uni te d

St at es v. Hah n , 35 9 F .3d 13 15 , 13 24 (10 th Cir . 20 04 ) (en ba nc ) (p er cu ria m ).

-2

-ag reem en t m ay in cl ud e a waiv er by de fen da nt of h[ er] st at ut or y rig ht to ap pe al

. . . .”).

Ack erl ey arg ue s, ho w e ve r, th at th e go ve rn m en t br each ed th e ag reem en t an d,

th eref or e, th e ap pe al waiv er is un en fo rcea bl e an d her ap pe al m ay pr oc eed

. 3 “ Is su es

co nc ern in g th e in te rp ret at io n an d en fo rcem en t o f a p le a ag reem en t are rev ie wed de

no vo .” Lov el ace , 56 5 F.3 d at 10 86 -8 7 (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Pat on , 53 5 F.3 d 82 9,

83 5 (8 th Cir . 20 08 )).

Bec au se Ack erl ey di d no t ob ject to ei th er the cal cu la te d bas e of fen se le ve l or

th e dr ug qu an ti ti es at tri bu te d to he r in th e pr es en te nc e in ve st ig at io n rep or t, we rev ie w

fo r pl ai n erro r. See id

. Thu s, Ack erl ey m us t sh ow (1 ) erro r, (2 ) th at is pl ai n, an d (3 )

th at affe ct s he r su bs ta nt ia l r i g h t s

. See id

. at 10 87

. “ [I]f t he ab ov e th ree pr on gs are

sa ti sf ie d, [we ha ve ] th e di sc re ti on to rem ed y th e erro r—d is cret io n whi ch ou gh t to be

ex erci se d on ly if th e erro r se rio us ly affe ct [s ] th e fai rn es s, in te gr it y or pu bl ic

r e p u t a t i o n of jud ic ia l pr oc eed in gs .” Pu ck et t v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , 5 5 6

U.S. 12 9

, 13 5 (2 00 9) (th ird al te rat io n in or ig in al ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s

om it te d) ; se e al so Uni te d St at es v. Olan o , 50 7 U.S. 7 25 , 73 2 (1 99 3) (n ot in g th at an

a pp el la te co ur t can no t ov ert ur n a jud gm en t “ un le ss ” pl ai n- erro r rev ie w ap pl i e s o r

“ un le ss so m e ot he r pr ov is io n au th or iz es th e erro r’s co rrec ti on ”). “ Mee ti ng al l fo ur

pr on gs is di ffi cu lt

, ‘as it sh ou ld be .’ ” Pu ck et t

, 55 6 U.S. at 13 5 (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es

v. Do m in gu ez Be ni te z , 54 2 U.S. 7 4, 8 3 n .9 (2 00 4) ).

II.

Des pi te it be in g h er bu rd en , Ac ke rle y ha s no t id en ti fie d whi ch , i f an y , o f he r

pr of fere d st at em en t s w e r e al le ge dl y us ed to cal cu la te th e dr ug qu an ti ti es co nt ai ne d

3 Ack erl ey do es no t arg ue th at th e ap pe al waiv er is un en fo rcea bl e be cau se he r

ap pe al fal ls ou ts id e th e sc op e of th e waiv er n or th at it is un en fo rcea bl e b ecau se sh e

un kn owi ng ly an d in vo lu nt ari ly en te red in to th e pl ea ag reem en t an d waiv er. See,

e.g

. , And is

, 33 3 F.3 d at 88 9- 90

. Nor do es sh e req ue st th at we no t en fo rce th e waiv er be cau se it wou ld res ul t i n a m is carr ia ge of ju st ic e. See id

. at 8 90

.

-3

-in th e pr es en te nc e in ve st ig at io n r e p o r t a n d to es ta bl is h he r ba se of fen se le ve l. Nor

can sh e ru le ou t th at th e in fo rm at io n us ed in th e pr es en te nc e in ve st ig at io n rep or t m ay

ha ve co m e fro m in de pe nd en t so ur ces , whi ch was pe rm is si bl e un de r th e p l e a

ag reem en t. Ack erl ey ex pl ai ns th at sh e do es no t h a v e e n ou gh in fo rm at io n to

de te rm in e if th e go ve rn m en t br each ed th e pl ea ag reem en t an d th at th e ex is ti ng reco rd

be fo re t hi s C ou rt i s i ns uf fic ie nt to m ak e su ch a de te rm in at io n.

Her ex pl an at ion am o un ts to a fat al co nc es si on th at sh e can no t sh ow erro r, m uc h

le ss “ pl ai n” erro r, fro m

th e ex is ti ng reco rd

. 4 Acke rle y req ue st s we re m an d t he cas e

to th e di st ri c t co ur t fo r a he ari ng in to whe th er th e go ve rn m en t br each ed th e pl ea

ag reem en t. Thi s req ue st

, ho wev er, ov erl oo ks th e fact th at th is Co u r t c a n n o t gr an t

rel ie f un le ss Ack erl ey sa ti sf ie s al l fo ur pr on gs of pl ai n- erro r rev ie w, se e Olan o , 50 7

U.S. at 73 2, two of whi ch sh e ha s co nc ed ed sh e can no t es ta bl is h ba se d on th e ex is ti ng

reco rd

. Mo reo ve r, sh e do es no t pr ov id e “ so m e ot he r pr ov is io n” th at wou ld au th or iz e

rel ie f. Id

. ; se e al so Uni te d St at es v. Yiju n Zho u , 83 8 F. 3 d 10 07

, 10 15 (9 th Ci r.

20 16 ) (Grab er, J., co nc ur rin g) (“ The Su pr em e Co ur t ha s le ft ve ry li tt le ro om —i f an y

at all —fo r th e jud ic ia l cr eat io n o f ex cep ti on s t o [p la in -err or rev ie w] .”).

Eve n as su m in g wit ho ut d e c id in g th at Ack erl ey ha s es ta bl is he d th e fir st two

pr on gs of pl ai n- erro r rev ie w, “ rem an d is no t au to m at ic .” Uni te d St at es v. Ols on , 66 7

F.3 d 95 8, 96 4 (8t h Cir. 20 12 ) (Ben to n, J., d is se nt in g) . In t hi s cas e, Ack erl ey “ m us t

m ak e a sp eci fic s h o win g of pr ejud ic e to sa ti sf y th e ‘affect in g su bs ta nt ia l

4 W e no te th ere m ay no t ha ve be en erro r ari si ng fro m th e go ve rn m en t’s al le ge d

us e of Ack erl ey ’s co op erat io n fact s be cau se Ack erl ey fai le d to ap pe ar fo r he r

or ig in al ly-sch e d u l e d se nt en ci ng

. See Uni te d St at es Sen te nc in g Co m m is si on , Gui de li ne s Man ua l

, § 1B 1.8 (b )(4 )

. F u rth er, USSG § 1B 1.8 (b )(5 ) m ay ha ve

au th or iz ed th e go ve rn m en t to di sc lo se Ack erl ey ’s co op erat io n fact s in m ov in g fo r a do wnwar d de pa rtu re un de r USSG § 5K1 .1. Be c a u s e t h e y were ne it he r arg ue d no r br ie fed by the pa rti es in th is ap pe al , we exp res s n o v ie w on th es e is su es

.

-4

-rig ht s’ pr on g

. . . .” Olan o , 50 7 U.S. at 73 5. 5 “ Si nc e th e rig ht s in th e pl ea ag reem en t

rel a t e t o s e n te nc in g, [Ack erl ey ] m us t sh ow th at h[ er] se nt en ce was affe ct ed by th e

b r e a c h

. ” Lov el ace , 56 5 F.3 d at 10 88 (ci ti ng Pu ck et t

, 55 6 U.S. at 14 2 n.4 ).

Sp eci fic al ly, sh e “ m

us t sh ow a ‘reaso na bl e pr ob ab il it y , ba se d on th e ap pe ll at e reco rd

as a who le

, th at bu t fo r th e erro r [s ]he wou ld ha ve rece iv ed a m or e fav or ab le

se nt en ce.’” Id

. (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Pi ran i

, 40 6 F.3 d 54 3, 55 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 )
(en ba nc ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) ).

Ack erl ey fai ls to es ta bl is h pr ejud ic e un de r th e th ird pr on g. Sh e st at es th at th e

go ve rn m en t’s br each of th e pl ea agre em en t “ no t on ly affe ct ed he r su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s

it al so se rio us ly affe ct ed th e fai rn es s, in t e g r it y , or pu bl ic rep ut at io n th e of [s ic ]
jud ic ia l pr oc eed in gs .” App el la nt ’s Br. 17

. Su ch a co nc lu so ry st at em en t, h o wev er,

is in su ffi ci en t un de r pl ai n- erro r rev ie w. A c co rd Uni te d St at es v. Ja ck so n , 22 0

F. App ’x 31 7, 33 0 (5 th Cir . 20 07 ); Uni te d S ta te s v . Ray , 14 7 F

. App ’x 32

, 36 (1 0t h

Ci r. 20 05 ). In de ed

, to acce pt he r st at em en t as sa t i s f a c t o ry wou ld tu rn pl ai n- erro r

rev i e w o n i t s h ead ; “ pr ov in g pl ai n erro r pr ejud ic e ‘sho ul d no t be to o eas y ’ an d

‘de m an d[ s] st ren uo us ex ert io n to ge t rel ie f.’” Pi ran i , 4 06 F.3 d at 55 2 (al te rat io n in

or ig i n a l ) (q uo ti ng Dom in gu ez Ben it ez , 5 42 U.S. a t 82 ). Fu rth erm or e, as ex pl ai ne d

ab ov e, Ack erl ey

is un ab le to po in t to th e pr eci se st at em en ts us ed in vi ol at io n o f th e pl ea ag reem en t or to ex pl ai n ho w th e us e of su ch s t at em en ts affe ct ed he r se nt en ce.

See Pu ck e t t

, 55 6 U.S. at 14 2 n.4

. Ack erl ey do es no t res po nd to th e go ve rn m en t’s

arg um en t th at th e in fo rm at io n use d in th e pr es en te nc e in ve st ig at io n rep or t to es ta bl is h

he r ba se of

fen se le ve l was av ai la bl e fro m in de pe nd en t so ur ces ; th eref or e, th ere was

no ne ed to us e he r pr of fere d st at em en ts to cal cu la te th e dr ug qu an ti ti es in th e

5 The go ve rn m en t’s br each of a pl ea ag reem en t “ is un do ub te dl y a vi ol at io n of

th e de fen da nt ’s rig ht s

. . . .” Pu ck et t

, 55 6 U.S. at 13 6. Howev er, th e “ br each of a pl ea de al is no t a ‘stru ct ur al ’ erro r

. . . .” Id

. at 14 1; se e al so Uni te d St at es v. Res ni ck

, 82 3

F.3 d 88 8, 89 8 (7t h C ir. 2 01 6) (no ti ng th at “ [a] Fift h Am en dm en t s el f-i nc riminat io n vi ol at io n is no t st ru ct ur al erro r”). Thu s, Ack erl ey is no t rel ie ve d of he r “ us ua l bu rd en of sh owi ng pre

jud ic e.” Pu ck et t , 55 6 U.S. at 14 1.

-5

-pr es en te nc e in ve st ig at io n rep or t. 6 The Su pr em e Co ur t co nt em p l a t e d th at “ [t]he

de fen da nt who se pl ea ag reem en t ha s be en br ok en by th e Gov ern m en t wil l no t al way s

be ab le to sh ow p reju di ce . . . .” Id

. at 1 41 . This cas e is il lu st rat iv e. 7

III.

Bec au se Ack erl ey ha s no t m et he r bu rd en un de r pl ai n- erro r rev ie w, we en fo rce

th e ap pe al waiv er an d d is m is s t he ap pe al

.

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

6 Tell in gl y , t he th ird ex hi bi t at ta ch ed to Ack erl ey ’s se pa rat e pr o se br ie f m ay

un de rm in e an y arg um en t th at th e go ve rn m en t’s al le ge d br each affe ct ed th e ou tc om e of he r se nt en ce. Tha t ex hi bi t is an e-m ai l fro m Ack erl ey ’s ap po in te d tri al co un se l to
he r ap po in te d ap pe ll at e co un se l whe rei n he r ap po in te d tri al co un se l e x p l a i ns th at
Ack erl ey ’s s t a t em en ts to in ve st ig at or s “ di d no t ch an ge th e ba se of fen se le ve l”

be cau se th e “ ba se of

fen se le ve l real is ti cal ly ha d al read y be en de te rm in ed be fo re he r

pr of fer.” Ack erl ey do es no t ad dr es s th e effe ct of th is co rres po nd en ce on he r bu rd en

to sh ow p reju di ce.

7 Bec au se Ack erl ey ha s fai le d to es ta bl is h th e th ird pr on g of pl ai n- erro r rev ie w,

we ne ed no t ad dr es s t he fou rth pro ng

. See Pi ran i , 40 6 F .3d at 5 53

.

-6

-