* The Honor able De nise Pag e Hood, United States D istrict J udg e for the Easter

n District of Michig an, sitting by

desig nation. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 08a0196n.06 F iled: April 16, 2008 No. 06-3594 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, ) ) Plaintiff-Appellee , ) On Appea l from the United ) States District Court for the v. ) No rt he rn Di str ic t of

Oh io ) DANI ELMcKI

NNEY, ) ) De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt. )

Before: MARTIN and ROGERS, Circ uit Jud ges; and HOOD, District Judge. * HOOD, DENISE P AG E, District Judge. Appellant Daniel M c K in n e y ( “ McKinney ”)

a pp e a ls t he Judg me nt and S ent e nc e imp os e d b y the dis tr ic t c ourt

a ft e r M c Ki nn e y ’s ple a

of g uil ty pursuant to a plea

ag ree ment under F ed. R. Civ. P. 11. For the re asons set for

th below, the district court’s judg ment is AFF I RMED. I. BACKG ROUND On Novembe r 16, 2005, McKinney was c harg ed in a two- count indictment with possession with intent to dis tribute in excess of 50 grams of cocaine base (crac k), in violation of 21 U.S.C. S ec. 841(a) (1) a

nd felon in posse ssion of a firea rm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. S ec. 922( g )(1) . (J.A. 7-8)No. 06-3594

United States v. Mc

Kinney Pag e 2 McKinney

enter ed a ple a of guilty

on Marc h 14, 2006 pursuant to a Rule 11 wr itten plea agree ment with the g overnme nt. (J .A. 20-29) The Rule 11 wr itten ag ree ment states that a pr e-ple a pre sentenc e re port was pre pare d i n d i c a t i n g t h a tM c K i n n e y w a s a c ar e e r o f f e n d e r w i thana

u t o m a t i c c r i m i n a l h i s t o r

y c a t e g o r y V I. (J.A . 2 3- 24 ) T he c a lc ulatio n s e t f or th i n th e Rul e 11 a g re e me nt f or Cou nt 1 e sta bli shed a ba se offe nse leve l of 32, based on the amount of c rac k coca ine involved of 50 to 150 g rams. (J.A. 22-23) The pa rties ag ree d that the base offe nse level for Count 2 was 24 and that the combined of fense level for Counts 1 and 2 wa s 32. (J .A. 23) The a g ree ment fu rt h er indicated that McKinne y was subjec t to enhance d penalties unde r U.S.S.G. Section 4B1.1 as a care er offende r because the indictment involved a controlled substance offe nse and Mc Kinney

had two prior f

elony co n v i ct i ons for a

crime of violence or

controlled substance of

fense

. (J.A. 23) The resulting base offense level was 37 beca use t he maximum statutory penalty for Count 1 is life imprisonment. (J .A. 23) The g overnme nt ag ree d to seek a three level reduc tion f

or ac cepta nce of responsibility

under U.S.S.G. 3E1.1(a) a

nd three levels for substantial assistance to the gover nment under 18 U .S.C. § 355 3 ( e ) an d U

. S. S. G

. 5 K 1

. 1

. ( J. A

. 2 3 , 2 6 ) M c K inn e y a g r e e d th a t h e w o u ld n o t r e qu e s t a further

re du c tio n of the tot a l adj us te d off e ns e le ve l at the tim e of se nte nc ing

. (J.A . 26) Mc Ki nn e y e xpre ssl y waived his rig ht to app ea l under 18 U .S.C. § 3742 or to challeng e his sentenc e under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 unless the sen t ence imposed by the judg e wa s in ex cess of the statutory

maxi mum or the sentenc ing r ang e under

the advisory

Sentencing Guidelines. (J.A. 24) McKinney did not waive theNo. 06-3594

United States v. Mc

Kinney Pag e 3 rig ht to appeal or

to collater ally attack a

ny claims of inef

fec tive assistance of counse l or prosec utorial misconduct. (J.A. 25) At the sentenc ing hear ing, the district judge g rouped tog ether the ca lculation of Counts 1 and 2, fi nd ingtha

t th e c on tr oll e d s ub sta

nc e s c ha rg e in C ount 1 wa s a ba se of fe ns e le ve l 32 . T wo le ve ls

wer e then added for Count 2 possession of a firea rm during the offe nse char g e, for an a djusted offe nse leve l of 34. (J.A. 35) The di s t ri ct j u dg e we nt on to find that McKinney was a car eer offe nder, ha

ving be en convic ted of two fe lony convictions of a c rime of violenc e and a contr olled substance offe nse, resulting in a n offe nse level of 37. (J.A. 35-36) The district judg e reduc ed the of fe ns e le ve l by

thr e e le ve ls f

or a c c e pta nc e of r e s p o n s ibi lity

un de r U .S. S.G . 3 E1 .1 (a ) a nd thr e e le ve ls for substantial assistanc e to the g overnme nt under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) and U.S.S.G. 5K1.1, r e s u lt ing in a total offe nse leve l of 31. (J.A. 36-37) The district judg e dete rmined McKinne y ’s cr iminal hi st ory cat egory

wa s V Ibe c a

us e of Mc Ki nn e y ’s c are e r o ff

e nd e r s tatus . ( J.A. 37 ) Atot a l of fe ns e level of 31 and a criminal history cate g ory of VI resulted in the se ntencingg uideline ra ng e of 188 to 235 months. (J .A. 37) Al tho ug h a c k

n o w l e d g i n g

t h a t u n d e r t h e p l e a a g re e me nt M c Ki nn e y

wa ive d h is r ig ht t o r e qu e st

an a dju stm e nt a s to the c ri min al hi stor y c a lc ulatio n b a se d o n M c Ki nn e y ’s c are e r o ff e nd e r s tatus , de fe ns e c ouns e l argue d th a t th e c ri min a l hi s t o r y o v e r - r e p r e s e nt e d

t h e se ri ou sn e ss o f M c Ki nn e y ’s pa st

c ri min a l c on du c t un de r the g uid e lin e s, g ive n that Mc Ki nn e y on ly re c e ive d p ro batio n o n th e c ha rg e s. (J.A . 4 0- 46 ) Th e dis tr ic t ju dg e fo un d th a t be c a us e Mc Ki nn e y

a g re e d to the c are e r o ff

e nd e r s tatus , McKinney

has waived his r ight to ask f or a de parture . (J.A. 46) The district judge found that theNo. 06-3594

United States v. Mc

Kinney Pag e 4
calc ulation was in the hea rtland of the ty

pes of calc ulations the g uideline writers intende d when they develope d the ca

ree r off ender calc ulation. (J .A. 46) The district judge went on to re view the f actor s set forth in 18 U.S .C. § 3553 befor e im posing the sentence of 190 months of imprisonment for Count 1 and 10 y ear s on Count 2 to run concurr ent with the sentenc e imposed on Count 1, followed by five y ear s of supervise d rele ase a nd $200 specia l a ssessment. (J.A. 49-52, 55) McKinney timely filed an appe al of the Judgment a nd sentenc e imposed by

the district judge

. II. AN AL YSI S Al tho ug h a

rgue d at th e e nd

of its br ie f, th e go ve rnme nt c la ims that Mc Ki nn e y wa ive d h is rig ht to appeal his sentenc e under the plea a g ree ment and is barr ed fr o m ch al l en g ing the district court’s se ntence . McKinney made no a

rguments addre ssing the issue of whether h e had w aived appellate revie w of his sentenc e. So l on g a s th e wa ive r i s k

no wi ngand

vo luntary , a de fe nd ant in a c ri min a l c a se c an w a ive his ri gh t to appeal. United States v. Flem ing , 2 39 F .3 d 7 61 , 7 63 -6 4 ( 6th Cir . 2 00 1) ; U

n ite d S ta tes v. Ashe , 47 F.3d 770, 775- 76 (6 th C ir . 1 99 5). An agre e me nt t o w a ive a ri g ht t o a pp e a l or oth e rw ise challeng e the constitutionalit y or leg ality of a se ntence imposed is binding on a de fenda nt. United Sta te s v . B az zi , 94 F .3 d 10 25 , 10 28 (6 th Cir . 1 99 6) ; United States v. Allison , 59 F.3d 43, 46 ( 6th Cir. 19 95 ). An a tte mpt to voi d the ple a a g re e me nt b y

a pp e a lin g an is su e that a

de fe nd ant s tip ulate d to and agr ee d n o t t o contest is in violation of the law in this circuit, unless the statutory maxi mum sentenc e has been exceede d. Bazzi, 94 F .3 d at 10 28 ; United States v. Caruthers, 458 F.3d 459, 471 (6th Cir. 2006).No. 06-3594

United States v. Mc

Kinney Pag e 5 On appe al, M cKinney does not argue that his appe al waive r wa s unenfor cea ble nor doe s he

argue that hi s p le a

wa s n ot v olu

nta ry or kn ow ing ly ma de , but ins te a d r a ise s tw o a rgume nts . T he fi rs t

argume nt i s th a t th e 19 0- month s e nte nc e on Co un t 1 is unr e a so na ble be c a us e : th e 10 0:1 ratio betwee n penalties for

cra ck coc aine c ompare d to penalties for powder coca ine is too gr eat; the g uid e lin e s d e viate fr om pub lic op ini on ; and , th e se nte nc e is f ar gre a te r t

ha n n e c e ssa ry to c omp ly

wi th the purp os e s o f 1 8 U .S. C. § 35 53 (a )( 2) . T he se c on d a rgume nt i s th a t the tr ial court e rr e d in calc ulating Mc Kinney ’s cr iminal hist ory and l ab el i ng McKinney as a c are er of

fende r. At the sentenc ing hear ing, defe nse counsel acknow ledg ed that McKinney waived his rig ht to appea l except f

or ineff ective a ssistance of c ounsel or prose cutorial misconduct c laims. (J .A. 54) The only objection ra ised by

McKinney

durin g t h e s entenc ing he aringwas to par ag raph 34 of the prese ntence repor

t noting that the wr ong case n u m b er w as desig nated a s the basis for the car eer offe nder status. (J.A. 32-33) De fense counsel did not argue that the pr esente nce r eport c ontained the wrongcase number and that the case s used to suppor t the car eer

offe nder status, includingthe amende d ca s e number , wer e wr ong . Def ense c ounsel mere ly

argued that McK inney ’s cr iminal h i s t o ry ca t ego ry o v er -r ep re s en t edt h e s er i o u s n es s o f h i s cr i m i n al h i s t o ry . (J

. A. 3 3 ) T h e d i s tri ct j u d ge amende d the pretrial repor t to show that case no. 426456 from Cuy ahog a County Common P leas wa s not t h e ca s e supporting the ca ree r off ender status, but that case no. 410441 should instead be considere d in determining whether McKinney

qualified a s a ca

ree r off ender . (J.A. 34) The plea ag ree ment betwee n the parties did not specific ally assig n McKinney to a par ticular crim i n al h i s tory

cate g ory , and noted that the c ourt at sentenc ing w ould determine Mc Kinney ’sNo. 06-3594

United States v. Mc

Kinney Pag e 6 criminal history

cate g ory . (J.A. 23) Howeve r, the pa rties ac knowledg ed that McK inney was subjec t to enhanc ed pena lties as a ca ree r off ender and that the pr e- p l ea p rese ntence repor t indicated M c K i n n e y w a s a c ar e e r o f f e n d e r , a u t o m a t i c a l l y p l a c i n g M c K i n n e y i n c r i m i n a l h i s t o r y c a t e g o r y V I. (J.A. 23-24) McKinney

expressly

ag ree d to waive his rig ht to appeal the c onvict ion or sentenc e, except that he re serve d the rig ht to appea l any sentenc e ex cee ding the statutory maxi mum and the sentenc ing r ang e dete rmined under the advisory

Sentencingg uidelines, u s i n g the cr iminal hist ory cate g ory found applicable by the cour t. (J .A. 24) McK inney

also rese rved the rig ht to appeal “ the criminal history

calc ulation as deter

mined by the C ourt, for those objections timely raised.” (J.A. 24-25) McKinney ’s counse l did not arg ue at t h e s en tencinghear ing that the calc ulation of the

c ri min a l hi sto ry wa s imp ro pe r. Mc Ki nn e y ’s c ouns e l re qu e ste d that the c ourt “ fa sh ion a re a so na ble sentenc e, to consider

the possible over r epres en t at i on of the c riminal history , and fa shion an appropr iate sente nce.” (J.A. 42) The district judge indicated that Mc Kinney ’s ar g ument was that the ca ree r off ender desig nation over- calc ulated the c riminal history , afte r which de fe n s e counsel

s t at ed , “[ t ] h e s er i o u s n e s s o f i t
. H e go tp ro b at i o no nt h o s e c as es . ” ( J

. A. 4 3 ) T h e d i s tri ct j u d ge interpre ted def

ense c ounsel’s comments as a motion for a depa rture unde r the guideline, which the district judge denied statingthat McKinney stipulated to the fact that he was a care er offende r. (J.A. 45) McKinne y ’s counse l then stated that, “obviously the sen t en ce is withi n the discre tion of the court. We have an agree ment, ultimately it’s up to the court t o impose a re asonable sentenc e. And these a re the mitigatingfac tors that I ’m bring ing to the c ourt’s attention ...” ( J .A. 45) In response ,No. 06-3594

United States v. Mc

Kinney Pag e 7 the district judge stated that he may have misunderstood defe nse counsel a nd that defe nse counse l was not askingfor a

depar ture. (J.A. 45) The c olloquy

betwe en d efense counse l and the district judg e re flec ts that the argument reg arding t he over -re prese ntation of the ser iousness of the cr iminal hist ory went to the § 3553 fac tors, rathe r than a

n objection to the ca lculation of t h e cr i minal history . The Rule 11 plea ag ree ment, the sentenc ing he aringtranscr i p t , an dthe totality of the c ircumstance s indicate that McKin n e y

ma d e a kn o w in g , v o lu

n ta r y an d inte ll ig e n t w a iv e r

o f h is r igh t t o a

p p e a l h is s entenc e. McKinney

acknow ledg ed in the Rule 11 plea ag ree ment that he was subject to e nhance d penalties

as a c are er of

fende r and that t h e p re -p l ea p rese ntence repor t indicated he w as at c riminal history cate g ory VI

. Other tha

n the incorr ect c ase numbe rs supporting the ca ree r off ender calc ulation and the argume nt t

hat th e se ri ou sn e ss o f the c ri me s we re ov e r- re pr e se nte d, Mc Ki nn e y did no t ob je c t to the ca lculation of the c riminal history

. There wer e no objections to the t rial court’s calc ulation and the sentenc e imposed wa s wi t h i n and on the lowe r end of the guideline ra

ng e. We find that McKinney

waived a ny appea l of the trial cour

t’s calc ulation of his criminal history

. III . C ON CL USI ON For the re asons set for

th above, the district c ourt’s judg ment is AFF I RMED.