### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T Febr uar y 11, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK [ 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 o. 04- 12677

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 3 - 0 0 4 3 7 - C R - T - 1 7 - MAP 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 M A U R I C I O G R I N A R D - H E N R Y , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om 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

_________________________ B efo re C A RN E S , H U L L an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. BY THE C OU RT : A pp el l antM auri ci o G ri nard-H enry appeal s hi s 135 -m on th sent ence i m po se d a f t e rhe pl e d gui l ty t o f

e de r a l drug c ha r ge s . S pe c i f i c a l l y , i n hi s i ni t i a l br i e f on2

ap p ea l, G rin ar d -H en ry ch allen g ed o n B lak ely/A p p re n d i g ro u n d s th e d istrict co u rt’s se nt enci ng hi m base d o n a drug qu ant i ty gre at erthan t he am ou ntt o w hi ch he pl ed g u i l ty b ased o n i t s o w n factu al fi n d i n g s. T h e g o v ern m en tm o v ed t o d i sm i ss G r in a r d - H e n ry ’s ap p e a l b a s e d o n th e ap p e a l w a iv e rin h is p le a a g r e e m e n t, a n d th is C our tgr a nt e d the gove rnm e nt ’ s m ot i on a nd di s m i s s e d the appe a l on D e c e m be r23, 2004. G r i na r d- H e nry now s e e ks r e c ons i de r a t i on of the di s m i s s a l i n l i ghtof the S upr e m e C our t ’ s de c i s i on i n U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B ooke r , 543 U . S . __, 125 S . C t . 738 ( 2 0 0 5 ) . Gr i n a r d - He n ry ’ s m o t i o n f o rr e c o n s i d e r a t i o n i s DE NI E D. A . Pl e a A g r e e m e nt G r in a r d - H e n ry ’s p le a a g r e e m e n t a c k n o w le d g e d th a t G r in a r d - H e n ry w o u ld be s e nt e nc e d i n c onf

or m a nc e w i th the f

e de r a l s e nt e nc i ng gui de l i ne s ; tha tG r i na r dH enry agre ed thatthe courthad j uri sdi ct i on and aut ho ri ty t o i m po se any s ent ence up t o the s t a tut ory m a xi m um s e tf or th f orthe of f e ns e a nd pur s ua ntt o the s e n te n c in g g u id e lin e s ; a n d th a t G r in a r d - H e n ry w a iv e d th e r ig h t to ap p e a l h is s e nt e nc e w i th c e r t a i n l i m i t e d e xc e pt i ons . S pe c i f i c a l l y , the pl e a a gr e e m e nts t a t e d, i n rel ev an tp art , as fo l l o w s:

T h e d ef en d an t u n d er stan d s a n d ac k n o w led g es th at d ef en d an t’s s e nt e nc e w i l l be de t e r m i ne d a nd i m pos e d i n c onfo r m a nc e w i th the C om pr e he ns i ve C r i m e C ontr ol A ct o f 1984 a nd the f e de r a l s e nt e nc i ng g u i d el i ne s . D e f

e nda nti s a l s o a w a r e tha ta s e nt e nc e i m pos e d unde rthe sen t en ci ng gui de l i ne s doe s notpr ovi de f orpa r ol e . K now i ng the se f a c t s , the de f

e nda nta gr e e s tha tthi s C o u rt h as j ur i s di c t i on a nd3

autho ri ty to i m po se any s ent ence up t o the st atut ory m axi m um se t f o rt h f orthe of

f e ns e a nd pur s ua ntt o the s e nt e nc i ng gui de l i ne s a nd e xpr e s s l y w a i ve s the r i ghtt o appe a l de f e nda nt ’ s s e nt e nc e , di r e c t l y or c ol l a t e r a l l y , o n a n y g r o u n d , . . . e x c e p t f o r a n u p w a r d d e p a r tu r e b y t he se nt enci ng j ud ge, a s ent ence abov e the statut ory m axi m um , or a sen t en ce i n v i o l at i o n o f th e l aw ap artf r o m th e sen t en ci n g g u i d el i n es; p rovi ded, ho w ever , thati f the go vernm entexer ci se s i t s r i gh tt o app ea l the s e nt e nc e i m pos e d, a s a ut h o ri zed by 18 U . S . C . § 3742( b) , the de f e nd a nt i s r e l e a s e d f

r om thi s w a i ve r a nd ma y app e a l the s ent ence as autho ri ze d b y 18 U . S . C . § 3 74 2(a) . ( E m pha s i s a dde d. ) T hus , the pl e a a gr e e m e ntc ont a i ne d onl y f oure xc e pt i ons t o the appeal w ai ver: (1) a n u pw ar d d epar ture, (2) ase nt ence abov e the st atut ory m a xi m um , ( 3) a s e nt e nc e i n vi ol a t i on of the l a w apa r tf

r om the s e nt e nc i ng g u id e lin e s , a n d ( 4 ) a n ap p e a l b y th e g o v e rn m e n t. D u r in g th e c h a n g e - o f

- p le a c o llo q u y w ith G r in a r d - H e n ry , th e m a g is tr a te j udge e xpl a i ne d t o G r i na r d- H e nry the s i gni f i c a nc e of the appe a l - w a i ve rpr ovi s i on, sp ec ifically q u es ti o n ed h im ab o u t th e w aiv er , an d co n firm ed G rin ar d -H en ry ’s unde r s t a ndi ng. B . D i s c u s s i on

“ 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 stri ctcourtspec i fi ca l l y quest i on ed the defendantabou tthe w ai ver duri ng the pl ea c ol l oquy , or( 2) the r e c or d c l e a r l y s how s tha tthe de f e nda ntothe rw i s e unde r s t ood the f ul l s i gni f i c a nc e of the w a i ve r . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B e ni t e z - Z apa t a , 131 F . 3d 1444, 1446 ( 11th C i r . 1997) ; s e e a l s o U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B uc ha na n, 131 F . 3d 1005,4

1 0 0 8 - 0 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) ; U n ite d S ta te s v . B u s h e r t, 9 9 7 F .2 d 1 3 4 3 , 1 3 5 0 - 5 1 ( 1 1 th C i r . 1993) . A n appe a l w a i ve ri nc l ude s the w a i ve rof the r i ghtt o appe a l di f

f i c ul tor de ba t a bl e l e ga l i s s ue s ore ve n bl a t a nte rr or . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. H ow l e , 166 F . 3d 1166, 1169 ( 11th C i r . 1999) . S pe c i f i c a l l y , “ the r i ghtt o appe a l a s e nt e nc e ba s e d on A pp re nd i / B oo ker groun ds ca n b e w ai ved i n a pl eaagre em ent . B road w ai ver l a ngua ge c ove r s thos e gr ounds of appe a l . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R ubbo, — F . 3d — , 2 0 0 5 W L 1 2 0 5 0 7 a t * 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . J a n . 2 1 , 2 0 0 5 ) . H er e, the re cord i s c l ea r thatthe m agi stra t e j ud ge spec i fi ca l l y quest i on ed G r in a r d - H e n ry d u r in g th e p le a c o llo q u y a b o u t th e ap p e a l w a iv e r , a d e q u a te ly expl ai ned t he si gn i fi ca nce of the appeal w ai ver, and con fi rm ed thatG ri nard-H enry un ders t oo d the ful l si gn i fi ca nce of the appeal w ai ver. In addi t i on , the general appeal -w ai ver l angu age of the pl eaagre em enti s broad enou gh t o i ncl ud e a n A ppr e ndi / B l a ke l y / B ooke rc l a i m . S e e i d. T hus , the onl y que s t i on i s w he the rthe A p p r e n d i/B la k e ly /B o o k e ris s u e r a is e d b y G r in a r d - H e n ry in th is ap p e a l f a lls w ith in a n y o f th e p le a a g r e e m e n t’s e x c e p tio n s . T o d e te r m in e w h e th e rG r in a r d - H e n ry w a iv e d th e r ig h t to ap p e a l o n th e b a s is o f th e A p p r e n d i/B la k e ly /B o o k e ris s u e , w e in te rp r e t th e p le a a g r e e m e n t in a c c o r d a n c e w ith th e in te n tio n s o f th e p a rtie s . S e e R u b b o , 2 0 0 5 W L 1 2 0 5 0 7 a t 4 . V i ew i ng the pl eaagre em entas a w ho l e, w e c on cl ud e thatG ri nard-H enry w ai vedGrina rd -H e nr y ’sbrie f o n a

pp e al alsoa ssert s th at th edis tric t c ourt e rre d in denyinghim

a 1 minor-role adjustment pursuant to U.S.S .G § 3B 1.2 and in deny ing him a downward depar ture beca use he w as a f

oreign national who would be inc arc erated fa r from his home and family . These issues c learly

were waived by

the appe al waiver and merit no further discussion. 5 a n y A p p r e n d i/B la k e ly /B o o k e rc la im f o rs e v e r a l r e a s o n s . O ne of the e xc e pt i ons a l l ow e d G r i na r d- H e nry t o appe a l a s e nt e nc e “ a bove the st atut ory m axi m um . ” T hi s C ou rtre ce nt l y hel d thatthe t erm “ st atut ory m axi m um , ” i n a pl eaagre em entperm i tt i ng appeal i n the l i m i t ed ci rc um st ance of a s e nt e nc e e xc e e di ng the s t a tut ory m a xi m um , r e f e r s t o “ the l onge s ts e nt e nc e tha tthe s t a tut e w hi c h puni s he s a c r i m e pe r m i t s a c our tt o i m pos e , r e ga r dl e s s of w he the rthe ac tual se nt ence m ustbe short ened i n a part i cul arca se because of the pri nci pl es i nv ol ved i n the A pp re nd i / B oo ker l i ne of deci si on s. ” R ub bo , 20 05 W L 12 05 07 at *5 . B ec ause G ri nard-H enry ’ s s ent ence do es no texce ed the re l evantst atut ory m a x im u m , h e is n o t e n title d to ap p e a l h is s e n te n c e u n d e rth is e x c e p tio n . T he onl y othe rpot e nt i a l l y appl i c a bl e e xc e pt i on i s the one a l l ow i ng G r i na r dH e nry t o appe a l “ a s e nt e nc e i n vi ol a t i on of the l a w apa r tf

r om the s e nt e nc i ng g u id e lin e s .” G r in a r d - H e n ry ’s ap p e a l a s s e r ts th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t s e n te n c e d h im ba s e d on a drug qua nt i ty gr e a t e rtha n the qua nt i ty t o w hi c h he pl e d gui l ty , ba s e d on f a c ts n o t f o u n d b y a ju ry , a n d th u s h is s e n te n c e v io la te s th e F if th a n d S ix th A m endm ent s. T he appeal i n eff ec tas se rt s thatthe se nt enci ng gu i del i nes w er e 1 u n c o n s titu tio n a lly ap p lie d to h is c a s e , a n d th u s G r in a r d - H e n ry ’s c h a lle n g e d ir e c tly6

i nv ol ves the appl i ca t i on of the se nt enci ng gu i del i nes. Itdo es no tal l ege a

“ vi ol at i on of the l aw apar tfr om the gu i del i nes. ” T hi s c on cl usi on i s a l so re i nforced by tw o o ther provi si on s of the pl ea a gr e e m e nt . F i r s t , the pl e a a gr e e m e nts t a t e d tha tG r i na r d- H e nry unde r s t ood a nd a c know l e dge d tha thi s s e nt e nc e w oul d be i m pos e d i n c onf or m i ty w i th the se nt enci ng gu i del i nes. S ec on d, G ri nard-H enry agre ed thatthe courthad j uri sdi ct i on and aut ho ri ty t o i m po se any s ent ence up t o the st atut ory m axi m um se t f o r th f o rth e o f f e n s e a n d p u r s u a n tt o th e s e n t e n c i n g g u i d e l i n e s . T h e s e two pr ovi s i ons f

ur the rde m ons tr a t e tha tG r i na r d- H e nry c onc e de d the appl i c a bi l i ty of th e s e n te n c in g g u id e lin e s to h is c a s e a n d d id n o t s e e k to p r e s e r v e th e r ig h t to c la im th a t th e s e n te n c in g g u id e lin e s w e r e u n c o n s titu tio n a l a n d c o u ld n o t b e ap p lie d to h is ca se . A cc ordi ng l y, w e c on cl ud e thatG ri nard-H enry ’ s A pp re nd i / B l akel y/ B oo ker cl ai m on appeal do es no tfa l l w i thi n any of the except i on s t o h i s app ea l w ai ver. B e c a u s e G r in a r d - H e n ry k n o w in g ly a n d v o lu n ta r ily w a iv e d h is r ig h t to ap p e a l h is s e n te n c e o n th e g r o u n d s h e a s s e r ts o n ap p e a l, th is ap p e a l w a s p r o p e r ly d is m is s e d , a n d G r in a r d - H e n ry ’s m o tio n f o rr e c o n s id e r a tio n is D E N I E D . DE NI E D.