NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

_____________ N o. 09- 3864

_____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. CA LV I N LI G O N S, A ppel l ant

_____________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

fo r th e D istri ct of

D elaw are ( D . C . N o. 1: 08- cr - 00168- 001) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n . Jo sep h J. F arn an , Jr. Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

Sept ember23, 2010 B efore: M C K E E , C hief J ud ge, and A M B R O and C H A G A R E S , C i rcui tJudg es. ( Fi l ed: Sept ember27, 2010)

______________ OP I NI ON

______________ C H A G A R E S, C i r cui tJ udge. C al vi n L i gons appea l s fr om a fi nal j udgm entof s ent ence bythe U ni t ed St at es2

D istric t C o u rt f

o r th e D istric t o f

D e law a re . F o r th e re a so n s s e t f o rth b e lo w , w e w ill aff i r m L i gons ’ s s ent ence . I. B eca us e w e w r i t e onl yforthe bene fi tof the part i es , w e w i l l onl ybr i efl yr eci t e the f a c ts. L ig o n s w a s c h a rg e d w ith p o ss e ss io n o f a n u n re g iste re d , sa w e d -o f f sh o tg u n in v io la tio n o f

2 6 U .S .C . § 5 8 6 1 (d ), a n d h e p le d g u ilty to th a t c h a rg e o n J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 0 9 . Incl ud ed in hi s guil typlea w as a w ai ver of ap pell at e ri gh t s, w hich provided as foll ow s:

T h e d e f e n d a n t k n o w s th a t h e h a s, a n d v o lu n tar ilyw a iv e s, th e rig h t to fi l e anyappea l , anycol l at er al att ack, oranyotherw r i torm ot i on aft er s ent enci ng – i ncl udi ng butnotl i m i t ed t o, an appe al underT i t l e 18, U ni t ed St at es C ode, Sect i on 3742 ora mot i on underT i t l e 28, U ni t ed St at es C ode, Sect i on 2255 – exce ptthatthe def endantr es erves hi s r i ghtt o appea l bas ed o n a c l a i m: ( 1 ) th a td e f e n d a n t ’ s s e n t e n c e e x c e e d e d th e s t a tu t o ryma x i mu m, or( 2) thathi s couns el w as cons t i tut i onal l yi neff ect i ve. J oi ntA ppendi x ( “J . A . ”) 18. T he G ui del i ne r ange w as 110- 20 m onths , and Li gons w as s ent ence d on Sept ember21, 2009, t o 115 m onths i m pr i s onm ent , thr ee y ear s of s upervi s ed re le a s e , a n d a $ 1 0 0 .0 0 s p e c ia l a s s e s s m e n t. T he t erm of s upervi s ed r el eas e al s o i ncl uded s ever al condi t i ons , i ncl udi ng that“the defe ndants hal l part i ci pat e i n a ment al heal th tr eatm entpr ogr am, atthe di r ect i on of the p ro b a tio n o f

f ice r.” J .A . 5 . L ig o n s f

iled a tim e lya p p e a l w ith th is C o u rt, alle g in g th a t th is c o n d iti o n o f

h is s u p e rv ise d re lea se w a s a n u n c o n stitu tio n a l d e leg a tio n o f ju d icia l p o w e r to the p rob ati o n o ff

icer. II.3

T he D i s tr i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on overthi s cas e pur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 3231, and thi s C our thas j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291. N ot abl y , the exi s t ence of an appel l at e w ai verdoes noti m pactthi s C our t ’ s j ur i s di ct i on. U ni t ed St at es v. G w i nnett , 483 F .3 d 2 0 0 , 2 0 3 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). I n det erm i ni ng w hetheran appe l l at e w ai veri s enfor cea bl e, thi s C our texer ci s es de novo r evi ew . U ni t ed St at es v. K hatt ak, 273 F. 3d 557, 560 ( 3d C i r . 2001) . I n r evi ew i ng the condi t i ons pl ace d on s upervi s ed r el eas e, w e r evi ew forpl ai n err or , as L i gons di d not obj ectt o hi s s ent enci ng atthe t i m e thati tw as i m pos ed. U ni t ed St at es v. Pruden, 398 F . 3d 24 1, 24 8 (3d C i r. 20 05 ). In order t o p rovi de g round s for r eversal , the err or m ust both be “pl ai n” and a ffe ct“s ubs t ant i al r i ght s . ” U ni t ed St at es v. H eckman, 592 F. 3d 400, 404 ( 3d C i r . 2010) . A n err oraff ect s s ubs t ant i al r i ght s i f i t“musthave a ffe ct ed the ou t c ome o f the di s tr i c tc ou r tpr oc e e di ng s . ” I d. ( qu ot i ng U ni t e d St a t e s v. O l a no , 50 7 U. S. 725, 732 ( 1993) ) . I n addi t i on, the err orm us t“s er i ous l yaff ect‘ the fa i rnes s , i nt egr i ty [, ] or publ i c r eput at i on of j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs . ’ ” I d. ( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal and i nt ernal q u o tat ion s o m itted). III . B efor e addr es s i ng the mer i t s of Li gons ’ s cl ai m , w e mustfi r s tdet erm i ne w hether h is ap p ea l i s b arred b ythe a p p ell ate w aive r co n tai n ed in h is plea a g ree m en t. “[ W ]aive rs of appe al s ar e gene r al l yperm i s s i bl e i f ent er ed i nt o know i ngl yand vol unt ar i l y , unl es s t hey w o rk a m iscarri ag e o f ju sti ce . ” K h att ak , 2 7 3 F . 3 d at 55 8 . In d eterm ining w h ethe r a4

w ai veri s appl i cabl e and e nfor cea bl e, a courts houl d fi r s tver i fythatthe w ai verw as know i ng and vol unt ary , then det erm i ne w hetherthe s cope of the w ai vercover s the appe al i n ques t i on, and fi nal l yens ur e thatenfor ci ng the w ai verw i l l notr es ul ti n a “mi s carr i age o f ju sti ce . ” U n it ed S tat es v . G o o d so n , 5 4 4 F . 3 d 5 2 9 , 5 3 6 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). L i gons conce des thathi s w ai verw as know i ng and vol unt aryand thati tcover s t he i ns t antappea l , and the r ecor d al s o s uppor t s thes e fa ct s . O urfocus , ther efor e, i s on w hetherenfor ci ng the w ai veri n t hi s cas e w i l l r es ul ti n a mi s carr i age of j us t i ce. W e have adopt ed a numberof fa ct or s t o ai d ourcons i der at i on of thi s i s s ue: “the cl ar i tyof the err or , i t s gr avi ty , i t s char act er( e. g. , w hetheri tconce rns a fa cti s s ue, a s ent enci ng g u id e lin e , o r a sta tu to rym a x im u m ), th e im p a c t o f c o rre c tin g th e e rro r o n th e g o v e rn m e n t, and the ext entt o w hi ch the def endantacqui es ced i n the r es ul t . ” K hatt ak, 273 F. 3d at563 (qu o ti n g U n it ed S tat es v . T ee ter, 2 5 7 F . 3 d 1 4 , 2 6 (1st C ir . 2 0 0 1 )). Im p o rt an tl y , h o w ev er, thes e fa ct or s ar e onl ym eantt o pr ovi de gui dance , and the ul t i m at e ques t i on r emai ns w h e th e rth e e n f

o r c e m e n to f

th e w a i v e rw o u l d c a u s e a m i s c a rr i a g e o f j u s t i c e . I d . F i n a l l y, the mi s carr i age- of-

j us t i ce e xcept i on s houl d be appl i ed “s par i ngl yand w i thoutundue g en ero sity . ” U n it ed S tat es v . W il so n , 4 2 9 F . 3 d 4 5 5 , 4 5 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). I n the pr es entcas e, w e s ee no mi s carr i age of j us t i ce thatw oul d r es ul tfr om enfor ci ng the appe l l at e w ai vercont ai ned i n L i gons ’ s pl ea a gr eement . E xami ni ng the fac t or s l i s t ed above , anyerr orher e w as farfr om cl ear , does notgo t o a maj orel ementof L i gons ’ s s ent ence , w oul d r equi r e the G overnm entt o s eek r e- s ent enci ng of Li gons , and5

w a s n o t o b

je c te d to a t th e tim e th a t th e s e n te n c e w a s im p o s e d . In a d d iti o n , to th e e x ten t th a t L ig o n s a rg u e s th a t an yc laim o f c o n stitu tio n a l er ro r is c o g n iz a b le u n d e r t h e m is c a rr ia g e -o f -j u s tic e e x c e p tio n , th is is s im p ly u n tru e . S e e , e .g ., U n ited S tate s v . L o c k e tt, 4 0 6 F .3 d 2 0 7 , 2 1 4 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ) (c o n c lu d in g th a t an a p p e llate w ai verpr event ed a de fenda ntfr om al l egi ng a Si xth A m endmentvi ol at i on underU ni t ed St at es v. B ooker ) . T hi s C our thas r ecogni zed i n the pas tthatcons t i tut i onal pr ot ect i ons can be w ai ved, and thatthe r i ghtt o appea l can be w ai ved as w el l . K hatt ak, 273 F. 3d at 561. T o concl ude i n t hi s cas e thatanyr i ghtt o appea l cons t i tut i onal i s s ues coul d notbe w a iv e d , the re f

o re , w o u ld b e c o n tra ryto o u r c lea r p re c e d e n t. Fi nal l y , des pi t e Li gons ’ s att empt t o confl at e the tw o, ther e i s an i m por t ant d istin c tio n b e tw e e n a se n ten c e b e in g “ b a se d u p o n ” a c o n stitu tio n a llyim p e rm iss ib le cr i t er i on and ther ebybei ng cogni zabl e underthe mi s carr i age- of- j us t i ce e xcept i on, G w in n e tt, 4 8 3 F .3 d a t 2 0 3 , an d c o n tain in g a c o n stitu tio n a l er ro r. T h e re is n o a lleg a tio n in the pr es entcas e thats om e cons t i tut i onal l yi m perm i s s i bl e cr i t er i a form ed the bas i s fort he re q u ire m e n t th a t L ig o n s a tten d m e n tal h e a lth c o u n se lin g ; ra th e r, th is c o n d iti o n a p p e a rs to have be en i m pos ed bas ed upon Li gons ’ s hi s t oryof anxi etyatt acks . L i gons does not chal l enge the bas i s fori m pos i ng the condi t i on, buti ns t ead di s agr ees w i th the w or di ng t hat w as us ed i n i m pos i ng i t . I n t hi s cas e, thati s nots uffi ci entt o es t abl i s h a mi s carr i age of j us t i ce.I n s um , as L i gons know i ngl yand vol unt ar i l yw ai ved hi s r i ghtt o appea l , and the6

enfor cementof thatw ai verdoes notw or k a mi s carr i age of j us t i ce i n the pr es entcas e, he has w ai ved the r i ghtt o have thi s C our tcons i derthe mer i t s of hi s as s ert i on thatthe condi t i on pl ace d on hi s s upervi s ed r el eas e amount s t o an uncons t i tut i onal del egat i on of ju d ic ia l p o w e r. I V. F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, w e w ill a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.