# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls
For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 7- 24 94

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Lash on e Gat es

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - Kan sa s C it y

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Nov em

be r 14 , 20 18 Fi le d: Feb ru ary 11 , 20 19 [Pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re GRUENDER, KELLY , and GRASZ, Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.

Lash on e Gate s cl ai m s f

o r th e fir st ti m e on ap pe al th at a pr ov is io n in hi s pl ea

ag reem en t waiv in g hi s rig ht to req ue st or rece iv e reco rd s pu rs ua nt to th e Free do m of

In fo rm at io n Act (“ FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 55 2, vi ol at es pu bl ic po li cy an d i s , t h eref or e,
in va li d. Lack in g ju ris di ct io n, we d is m is s h is ap pe al

.Gate s pl ead ed gu il ty to vi ol at in g 18 U.S.C. § 24 23 (d ) an d (e) fo r at te m pt in g to

arra ng e, fo r th e pu rp os e of pr iv at e fin an ci al ga in , th e tr av el of a pe rs on in in te rs ta te

co m m erce in or de r to en ga ge in a co m m erci al se x act w i t h a pe rs on un de r 18 y ears of ag e. As p art of h is writ te n pl ea ag reem en t, Gate s waiv ed hi s ap pe ll at e an d p os tco nv ic ti on rig ht s. Tha t waiv er ex cl ud ed fro m it s s c o p e c ol la te ral at ta ck s on th e

gr ou nd s of in eff

ec tiv e assi st an ce of co un se l an d pr os ecu to ria l m is co nd uc t. Gate s al so waiv ed hi s rig ht “ to req ue st or rece iv e fro m an y de pa rtment or ag en cy of th e Uni te d

St at es an y r eco rd s pe rta in in g to th e in ve st ig at io n or pr os ecu ti on of th is cas e
in cl ud in g, wi th ou t lim it at io n, any reco rd s th at m ay be so ug ht un de r th e Fre ed om of

In fo rm at io n Act, 5 U.S.C. § 55 2.” Gate s di d no t ch al le ng e th e va li di ty of th is FOIA

waiv er b efo re t he di st ric t co ur t.

On ap pe al

, Gate s ch al le ng es th e FOIA waiv er “ in co nn ect io n wit h a co ll at eral

at ta ck on gro un ds pe rm it te d by h is ap pe al waiv er: in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l

or pr os ecu to ria l m is co nd uc t.” He cl ai m s th at “ [n ]o le gi ti m at e cri m in al jus ti ce in te res t jus ti fie s Gate s’ FOIA waiv er as it rel at es to cl ai m s of in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l

an d pr os ecu to ria l m is co nd uc t.” The waiv er, he ad ds

, “ ha rm s FOIA’s pr im ary po li cy ob jecti ve , na m el y , to pr om ot e pu bl ic ov ers ig ht of go ve rn m en t pr oc es se s, he re, th e cri m in al jus ti ce pr oc es s.” Not ab ly, Gate s do es no t act ua ll y br in g c l a i ms fo r
in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l or pr os ecu to ria l m is co nd uc t. He al so do es no t al le ge
th at he req ue st ed or wa s d en ie d a ny reco rd s o n t he ba si s o f hi s FOI A waiv er.

W e la ck ju r i sd ic ti on be cau se Gate s’s FOIA waiv er cl ai m is no t rip e. “ The rip en es s do ct rin e is gr ou nd ed in bo th th e juri sd ic ti on al l i mi ts of Arti cl e III of th e
Co ns ti tu ti on an d po li cy co ns id erat io ns of effe ct iv e co ur t ad m in is tra ti on .” KCC P Tr

.

v. Ci ty of N. Ka ns as Ci ty
, 43 2 F.3 d 89 7, 89 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ). “ Ri pe ne ss req ui r[es ] us

to ev al ua te bo th th e fit ne ss of th e is su es fo r jud ic ia l de ci si on an d th e ha rd sh ip to th e

pa rti es of wit hh ol di ng co ur t co ns id erat io n.” Texa s v. Uni te d St at es , 52 3 U.S. 29 6,

30 0- 01 ( 1 9 9 8 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. “ The fit ne ss pr on g sa feg ua rd s

ag ai ns t jud ic ia l rev ie w of hyp o t h et ic al or sp ecu la ti ve di sa gr eem en ts .” Par ri sh v. Day to n , 76 1 F .3d 87 3, 87 5 (8t h Cir. 20 14 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . The

-2

-ha rd sh ip pr on g co ns id ers whe th er dela y ed re vie w “ in fli ct s si gn ifi can t pr act ic al ha rm ”

on th e p et it io ne r. Id

.

The va li di ty of Gate s’s FOIA waiv er is no t fit fo r jud ic ia l rev ie w be cau se Gate s
ha s no t req ue st ed an y reco rd s fro m th e go ve rn m en t pu rs ua nt to FOIA. D e s pi te th e
FOIA waiv er, Gate s is no t pr ecl ud ed fro m req ue st in g reco rd s fro m th e go ve rn m en t,

an d th e go ve rn m en t is no t ob li ga te d to de ny hi s req ue st

. Als o, if th e go ve rn m en t

were to de ny hi s req ue st
, Gate s co ul d ch al le ng e th at de ni al in a se pa rat e act io n. Fo r

ex am pl e, in Pri ce v. U.S. Dep ’t o f J u st ic e Att or ne

y Off ic e , a cri m in al de fen da nt

en te red in to a pl ea ag reem en t co nt ai ni ng a FOIA waiv er id en ti cal to th e FOIA waiv er
in Gate s’s pl ea ag reem en t. 86 5 F.3 d 67 6, 67 8, 68 6 n.2 ( D

. C

. Ci r. 20 17 ).

Nev ert he le ss , th e de fen da n t s u b mi tt ed a FOIA req ue st to th e Fed eral Bu reau of

In ve st ig at io n. Id

. at 67 8. Th e FBI de ni ed hi s re qu es t, re as on in g t ha t t he de fen da nt
ha d waiv ed hi s rig ht to rece iv e su ch reco rd s re l a te d to hi s cas e. Id

. The de fen da nt
ch al le ng ed t h a t de ni al in fed eral di st ric t co ur t. Id

. The di st ric t co ur t ad dr es se d hi s waiv er arg um en ts
, an d th e D.C. Ci rcu it rev ie wed on ap pe al th e qu es ti on of whe th er
th e FBI lawf

ul ly w it hh el d t he reco rd s. Id

.

Gate s al so wil l no t su ffer ha rm if we d o n o t ad dr es s hi s cl ai m

. He do es no t
al le ge th at he cu rren tl y ne ed s reco rd s “ pe rta in in g to th e in ve st ig at io n or pr os ecu ti on of th is cas e,” m

uc h le ss th at he ha s an y reas on to be li ev e th at su ch reco rd s wil l en ab le

hi m to br in g a co lo rab le cl ai m fo r ei th er in effe ct i v e a s s i s ta nc e of co un se l or

pr os ecu to ria l m is co nd uc t, th e two types of ap pe al s pe rm it te d by hi s pl ea ag reem en t.

Fo r th es e reas on s, Gate s’s FOIA waiv er cl ai m is no t r ip e. Deci di ng it no w

wou ld am ou nt to th e is su an ce of an ad vi so ry op in io n in vi ol at io n of Arti cl e III. Se e
KCC P Tr

. , 43 2 F.3 d at 89 9 (“ Arti cl e III li m it s th e fed eral co ur ts to de ci di ng ‘Cases ’

an d ‘Con tro ve rs ie s’ an d th us pr oh ib it s us fro m is su in g ad vi so ry op in io ns .”). W e are wit ho ut juri sd ic ti on an d d is m is s t he ap pe al

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-3

-