2008 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 1-17-2008 

# U SA v . J ones P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 06-5058

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and 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 ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . J one s " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1727. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1727H onor abl e Thom as I . V anas ki e, U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctJ udge forthe M i ddl e D i s t r i ctof * Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. 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. 06- 5058

__________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. AN THO NY J ON ES 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 f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D. C. Cr i mi n a l No. 0 6 - c r - 0 0 0 0 1 - 2 E) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n . S e a n J. M c L a u g h lin

__________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

O ct ober30, 2007 B efore: R E N D E L L and N Y G A A R D , C i rcui tJudg es,

and V A N A SK I E , D i s t r i ctJ udge * ( Fi l ed: J anuary17, 2008)

OP I NI ON

__________ V A N A SK I E , D i s t r i ctJ udge.2

A nt honyJ ones ( “J ones ”) appea l s fr om hi s s ent ence of 292 m onths i m pr i s onm ent i m po sed byt he D i stri ctC ou rtfoll ow i ng Jones’s plea of gu i l t yt o co nspir acyt o p ossess w i t h t he i nt entt o di s t r i but e and di s tr i but i on of coc ai ne bas e and c ocai ne. J ones pl ed gui l t ypur s uantt o a w r i t t en pl ea a gr eementi n w hi ch he w ai ved hi s r i ghtt o appea l the s ent ence . J ones ar gues t hatt he w ai veri s i nval i d, thati t s enfor cementw i l l r es ul ti n a m i s carr i age of

j us t i ce, and, t her efor e, thatthi s C our ts houl d di s r egar d t he w ai verand r evi ew t he mer i t s of hi s appea l . W e di s agr ee, and hol d t he w ai verval i d and enf or cea bl e, th u s p re c lu d in g c o n s id e ra tio n o f th e s u b s ta n tiv e is s u e s p re s e n te d b yJ o n e s ’s a p p e a l. C o n se q u e n tly , w e a f

f irm th e D istric t C o u rt’s ju d g m e n t. I O n J anuary10, 2006, a gr and j uryi n t he W es t ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a i ndi ct ed J ones and ei ghtot her s on cons pi r acyand drug di s t r i but i on char ges . J ones and the G overnm ents ubs equent l ynegot i at ed and e xecut ed a w r i t t en pl ea a gr eementi n w hi ch Jo n e s a g re e d to p lea d g u iltyto th e c o n sp ira c yc h a rg e . O f im p o rt to th is a p p e a l is Par agr aph A ( 8) of the agr eement , w hi ch s t at es thatJ ones “w ai ves the r i ghtt o t ake a di r ect appea l fr om hi s convi ct i on ors ent ence under28 U . S. C . § 1291 or18 U . S. C . § 3742. ” (A pp . 17 . ) Th e w ai ver w as subj ectt o tw o ex cepti on s: (a ) If th e U n ite d S ta te s a p p e a ls f ro m th e s e n te n c e . . . . (b ) If (1 ) th e se n ten c e e x c e e d s th e a p p lica b le s tatu to rylim its se t f o rth in t he U ni t ed St at es C ode, or( 2) the s ent ence unr eas onabl yexce eds the gui del i ne r ange de t erm i ned bythe C our tunderthe Sent enci ng3 G u id e lin e s . . . . (Id . at 1 7 -1 8 .) T h e a g re e m e n t cla rif ied th a t th e “ f

o re g o in g re se rv a tio n s o f th e rig h t to appea l on t he bas i s of s peci fi ed i s s ues do noti ncl ude the r i ghtt o r ai s e i s s ues ot herthan th o se sp e c if

ied .” (I d . at 1 8 .) B o th Jo n e s a n d h is a tto rn e ysig n e d th e a g re e m e n t. J ones pl ed gui l t yon J ul y25, 2006. T he D i s t r i ctC our tconduct ed an e xt ens i ve c o llo q u yo f

Jo n e s to a sc e rta in h is u n d e rsta n d in g o f th e ter m s o f

th e p lea a g re e m e n t, i ncl udi ng t he w ai verof appe al r i ght s . T he D i s t r i ctC our tdi r ect ed J ones ’ s at t orneyand t he A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A t t or ney( “A U SA ”) t o expl ai n t o J ones the cons equenc es of t he appe al w ai verand i t s narr ow exce pt i ons . T he D i s t r i ctC our tthen as ked J ones w hether h e u n d e rsto o d a n d a g re e d w ith th e e x p lan a tio n , to w h ich Jo n e s – u n d e r o a th su b jec t to p e n a lty o f

p e rj u ry – re s p o n d e d a f f ir m a tiv e ly. O n D e c e m b e r 5 , 2 0 0 6 , the D istric t C o u rt c o n d u c ted a n e v id e n tiary he a rin g to r es ol ve the G overnm ent ’ s obj ect i on t o t he r ecomm endat i on i n t he Pr es ent ence I nves t i gat i on R epor tt hatJ ones r ece i ve onl ya tw o- l evel enhanc ementi n hi s offe ns e l evel due t o hi s l eade r s hi p r ol e i n t he drug tr aff i cki ng cons pi r acy . A tthe conc l us i on of the e v id e n tiary pr e se n tatio n , Jo n e s o b jec ted to a n ye n h a n c e m e n t in h is o f f e n se lev e l f

o r h is r ol e i n t he j oi nt l y - under t aken c r i m i nal act i vi t y . Fi ndi ng thatthe t es t i m onys how ed J ones t o be the “c entr al cog i n t hi s cons pi r acy , ” ( A pp. 108) , the D i s t r i ctC our ts us t ai ned the G overnm ent ’ s obj ect i on and overrul ed the def ens e obj ect i on. T he r es ul t antfour - l evel enh ancem ent for r ole i n the offen se und er U . S . S . G . § 3 B 1. 1(a) produ ced a n etoff ense4

l evel of 35. C om bi ned w i t h a cr i m i nal hi s t orycat egoryof V I , J ones ’ s offe ns e l evel r es ul t ed i n an advi s or ygui del i ne r ange of 292 t o 365 m ont hs i m pr i s onm ent . A ft er h ea ri n g fro m Jo n es, his att o rne y , an d the A U S A , the D istri ct C o u rtim p o sed a p ri so n term at th e b o tt o m o f th e a d v isoryg u ideline ra n g e, 29 2 m o n ths. D esp it e the ap p ea l w aive r, t hi s t i m el yappea l fol l ow ed. II A . T he D i s t r i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on under18 U . S. C . § 3231. W e have j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291 and 18 U . S. C . § 3742( a) . T hi s C our tr et ai ns j ur i s di ct i on overan appea l even though t he def endanthas exec ut ed a pl ea a gr eementcont ai ni ng an appe al wa i v e r . Un i t e d S t a t e s v . Gwi n n e t t , 4 8 3 F . 3 d 2 0 0 , 2 0 3 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 7 ) . I f , h o we v e r , we fi nd t hatt he def

endantknow i ngl yand vol unt ar i l yw ai ved hi s r i ghtt o appea l , and thatt he enfor cementof the w ai verw i l l notw or k a mi s carr i age of j us t i ce, w e r efr ai n fr om exer ci s i ng ourj ur i s di ct i on. I d. O urr evi ew of appe al w ai ver s i s de novo. U ni t ed St at es v . K h att ak , 2 7 3 F . 3 d 5 5 7 , 5 6 0 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). B. In K h a ttak , this C o u rt h e ld th a t “[ w ]a iv e rs o f a p p e a ls, if e n ter e d in to k n o w in g ly and vol unt ar i l y , ar e val i d, unl es s t heyw or k a mi s carr i age of j us t i ce. ” I d. at563. T he d e f e n d a n t s h o u ld e rs th e b u rd e n o f d e m o n s tr a tin g w h yth e w a iv e r s h o u ld n o t b e e n f o rc e d . I d.5

“I n det erm i ni ng w hethera w ai verof appe al i s ‘ know i ng and vol unt ary , ’ the r ol e of t he s ent enci ng j udge i s cr i t i cal . ” I d. T hus , w e exa m i ne the gui l t ypl ea c ol l oquy co n d u cted b ythe D istri ct C o u rtfo r i ts co m p li an ce w ith F ed . R . C ri m . P . 1 1 . B ef o re acc ept i ng a def

endant ’ s gui l t ypl ea, the D i s t r i ctC our tm us taddr es s the def endanti n open cour tt o “i nform t he def endantof, and det erm i ne thatthe def endantunder s t ands . . . the t erm s of anypl ea- agr eementpr ovi s i on w ai vi ng the r i ghtt o appea l ort o col l at er al l yatt ack the s en tenc e.” F ed . R . C ri m . P . 1 1 (b)(1 )(n). H er e, t he D i s t r i ctC our tcl ear l ycompl i ed w i t h t hi s rul e. A tJ ones ’ s change of pl ea h e a rin g , the D istric t C o u rt a sk e d Jo n e s w h e th e r h e re a d th e p lea a g re e m e n t, dis c u ss e d it w i t h hi s at t or ney , agr eed w i t h and under s t ood i t s t erm s and condi t i ons , and s i gned the pl ea a gr eement . J ones ans w er ed “y es ” t o eac h ques t i on. T he courtpai d par t i cul ar at t ent i on t o t he appe al w ai ver , di r ect i ng J ones ’ s at t orneyand the A U SA t o expl ai n t he c o n se q u e n c e s o f

th e w a iv e r a n d c o n f

irm in g Jo n e s’s u n d e rsta n d in g a n d a g re e m e n t w ith th e ire x p la n a tio n . J on e s do e s no tc ha l l e ng e t he D i s t r i c tCour t ’ s c ompl i a nc e w i t h Fe d. R. Cr i m. P. 11( b) ( 1) ( n) . I ns t ead, J ones ar gues thatthe w ai veri s i nval i d beca us e he di d notknow at th e tim e h e a g re e d to w a iv e h is a p p e a l rig h ts th a t th e D istric t C o u rt w o u ld “ e n g a g e in u n c o n stitu tio n a l se n ten c in g p ra c tice s.” (A p p e llan t’s R e p lyB r. at 4 .) T h is c o n ten tio n is bas el es s . T he D i s t r i ctC our thad no obl i gat i on t o advi s e J ones of hypot het i cal s ent ence s in o rde r t o assu re a k n o w ing an d v o lun taryw aive r of ap p ea l r igh ts. T h e D istri ct C o u rt6

di d, how ever , expl ai n t o J ones t hathi s s ent ence coul d be more orl es s s ever e than that a n ticip a ted b yJo n e s o r p ro v id e d f o r b yth e g u id e lin e s, a n d th a t in su c h c a se Jo n e s w o u ld be bound byhi s gui l t ypl ea a nd l i kel yunabl e t o appea l the s ent ence . J ones r epr es ent ed t hathe under s t ood t hi s expl anat i on. A ccor di ngl y , w e hol d t hatJ ones know i ngl yand v o lu n tar ilyw a iv e d h is rig h t to a p p e a l. J ones al s o cont ends t hatenfor cementof the w ai verw i l l w or k a mi s carr i age of j us t i ce. I n K hat t ak, t hi s C our tr ecogni zed that“[t ] her e maybe an unus ual ci r cumst ance w her e an e r r oramount i ng t o a mi s carr i age of j us t i ce mayi nval i dat e the w ai ver . ” K hat t ak, 273 F. 3d at562 ( emphasi s added) . W e dec l i ned t o del i neat e s peci fi c s i tuat i ons w her e an a ppeal w ai verm aybe unenf or cea bl e, butr atheradopt ed the appr oach of U ni t ed S tat es v . T ee ter, 2 5 7 F . 3 d 1 4 (1st C ir . 2 0 0 1 ), w h ich c o n side rs sev era l fac tors b ef o re r el i evi ng a def

endantof hi s w ai ver : the cl ar i t y , gr avi t y , and cha r act erof the err or ; the e rr o r’ s im p a c t o n th e p a rt ie s ; a n d th e e x te n t o f th e d e f e n d a n t’ s a c q u ie s c e n c e in th e re s u lt. I d. at563 ( quot i ng T eet er , 257 F. 3d at25- 26) ; s ee a l s o U ni t ed St at es v. Shedr i ck, 493 F . 3 d 2 9 2 , 2 9 8 n . 6 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). In th is m a tter, Jo n e s f

a ils to id e n tify , an d o u r re v iew o f th e re c o rd d o e s n o t re v e a l, anyerr orcomm i tt ed byt he D i s t r i ctC our tthat , i f l eftunchec ked, w oul d w or k a m i s carr i age of

j us t i ce. I n t hi s r egar d, J ones ’ s cl ai m s of cons t i tut i onal err orar e w i t hout m er i t . Fori ns t ance , contr aryt o J ones ’ s ar gum ent s , the s t andar d of pr oof forfac tual f in d in g s re lev a n t to th e a p p lica tio n o f th e a d v iso ryse n ten c in g g u id e lin e s is7

p re p o n d e ra n c e o f

th e e v id e n c e , an d th e m a x im u m se n ten c e f o r p u rp o se s o f

th e rig h t to pr oof bey ond a r eas onabl e doubti n an advi s orys ent enci ng gui del i nes s cheme i s that pr es cr i bed byt he U ni t ed St at es C ode. See U ni t ed St at es v. G r i er , 475 F. 3d 556, 561, 565, 568 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( en banc ) . T he D i s t r i ctC our tadher ed t o t hes e cons t i tut i onal r equi r ement s i n i m pos i ng i t s s ent ence i n t hi s cas e. Fur t herm or e, w e obs erve thatthe D i s t r i ctC our t , aft ercons i der i ng t he ar gum ent s of the part i es and the r el evantfac t or s s et for t h i n 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) , s ent ence d J ones t o a pr i s on t erm of 292 m onths , the bott om of hi s advi s or ygui del i ne r ange. T hus , w e di s cern no i nj us t i ce thatw oul d w arr ant r el i evi ng J ones of hi s w ai verof the r i ghtt o appea l . C ons equent l y , w e w i l l enfor ce the w aive r, d ec li n e to re v iew the s u b stan ti v e issu es p rese n ted b yJo n es’s a p p ea l, an d af firm th e D istric t C o u rt. III F o r th e re a so n s s tate d , w e a f f irm th e se n ten c e im p o se d b yth e D istric t C o u rt.