2004 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
6-2-2004 

# U S A v . W a shin g t on P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 02-2757

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" U SA v . W ashin g t on " (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 632. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/632NOT PRE CEDENT IAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT
No. 02-2757
UNITED S TATES OF AMERI CA

v. JEF FREY DAV ID WAS HINGT ON

a/k/a Ke nny D on C otts Jeffrey

Washington, Appellant
App eal from th e Un ited States District Co urt for the M iddle D istrict of P enns ylvania (D.C. Crimi nal No. 01-cr -00231) Distri ct Judge: Honorable Will iam J. Neal on
Submitte d Under Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a)

February25, 2004 Be for e: R EN DE LL , BA RR Y a nd F ISH ER , Circu it Judges

(Fil ed June 2, 2004)

__________ OPI NION

__________1 Washington has al so made a clai m of ineffectiveness of counsel, which we will not

decide, based on our pr acti ce of decidi ng such iss ues on a peti tion for reli ef under habeas cor pus , rath er th an o n di rect a ppe al. United States v. J ake , 281 F.3d 123, 132 n. 7 (3d Cir. 2002 ).
- 2 - RE ND EL L, Circuit

Judge
. Jeffr ey Dav id W ashin gton pled g uilty to poss ession with intent to distribu te cocaine bas e and was sentenc ed to 262 months’ impris onment. He complai ns that the Distri ct Court s hould have permitt ed him to withdraw his gui lty plea, based on ineffectiveness of counsel a nd lack of vol untari ness. He also urges that t he government breached the plea agr eement in pr essing f or a sent ence higher

than had been agreed upon. 1 The government urges that he is for eclosed f rom chall enging his plea on appeal bas ed u pon his w aive r ofthat r igh t as p art o f his plea agr eem ent. 

### Accordingly, it has moved to di smis s the appe al. We will gra nt this m otion. Washington ’s plea agreement pro vided that: [t]he defendant is aware that Title 18, United State s Code, Section 3742 a

ffords a defendant the r

ight to appe al the sentenc e impos ed. Acknowledging all of t his, the defendant knowingly waives the right to appeal any se ntence imposed within the statutory

maximum , or the manner in which that sentenc e was det

ermined, on the gr

ounds set for

th in Title 18, United Sta

tes Code, Section 3742, or any other grounds . The defendant a

lso waive s the defendant’s r ight to cha

llenge a ny sentence or the ma

nner in which the sentence was determ ined- 3 - 

### in any collat eral pr oceeding, including but

not lim ited to a motion br ought under Tit

le 18, Unit

ed State s Code, Section 2255. In addition, Washington also signed a document entit led Statement of Defendant, which states: “I further u nderstand th at as a part of th e plea agreement, I am waivin g my right to appeal and/or challenge my conviction and sentence, and the manner in which it was imposed.” We have held that waivers of appeals in plea a greements are valid if entered into knowin gly and voluntarily. United States v. Khattak , 273 F.3 d 557, 5 62 (3d C ir. 2001). Here, the District Co urt specifically questione d Washingto n’s understan ding of his waiver. The Court asked : if he had sig ned, read an d understo od the plea ag reement; if he had discu ssed it with his co unsel; if he h ad had eno ugh time to discu ss it with his counsel; if his couns el had expl ained eve rything in it ; and, if every thing in it was true and correct. Was hington replied, “Yes.” The Court then explained the effect of the waiver on his rights to appeal and to collatera lly attack the proceedings and the sentence imposed, and asked whether he understood of a

ll this . Again, Washington r eplied, “Yes.”The Court conc luded, on the basis of t his thorough c olloquy , that Washington had waived his rights of appeal knowingly and voluntarily . We agree. Thus, the waiver is valid, and d ivests us of j urisdiction o ver Washingto n’s appeal. Id. at 563. According ly, we will dismiss his appeal.