## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 11

- 2412 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. H I PO L I T O A LCALA, D ef endant-Appellant.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the E astern Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No . 08- CR-00190

—Rudo lphT. Rand a, Judge .
A RGUED A PRI L 4, 2012

— D ECI DE D M AY 3, 2012

B efore E A S T E RB R OO K, Chief Judg e, a nd F LA UMa nd M A NI ON, C ircu it Judges . F LA UM, Cir cu i tJudg e . H ip olit o A l cal a pl ed gui l ty to a si ngl e co unt ofunl aw fully using a com m unica ti on f ac i l i tyt o furthe ra dr ugt r affi ck i ngo ffen se . Af te rthe dist ri ct c ourtacc epted his p lea, but bef or e s entencing, h e m ov ed to w ith d ra w h is p lea . D es p ite th e f a c t t h at, in h is p lea ag re em en t, h e w aiv ed h is r i g h t to ap p ea l his con viction, he no w attem p ts to ap p eal the d istri ct cou rt’s2 N o. 11

- 2412 denia lo fhi s m oti on t o w ith d ra w hi s pl ea. H e a rgues t h a t h e d id n otkn ow in gly an d vo lu n ta rily w aiv e h is ri ght t o appeal, s tr ess i ng hi s ba ckg ro und as a nati ve S p a n i s h

- s p e a k e rwi th a n e i g h th g r a d e e d u c a t i o n . We d ism iss th e a p p ea l.

I . B a c kg r o und H i po l i to Al ca l a ( “Al ca l a” ) was c ha r g ed w i thc o nspi ra cy to posse ss w i th the i ntent to d istribute fi ve ki l ogr am s o r m or e o fco cai ne, 2 1 U.S
. C. § 8 41( a) ( 1) ; fi fty gram s or m ore of co caine base, 21 U

. S. C
. § 841(b)(1) (A ); and one k i l ogr am o r m or e o fher oi n, 21 U
. S. C. § 8 46. I ni ti al l y, A l cal a pl ed not gui l ty, and a tw o- day j ury tr i al com m en c ed o n A ugust 1 6 a nd 17, 20 10. A fterse ver al G ov er n m en t w itn es se s t es tifie d ag ai n s t h im , A lca la i n f o r me d th e c o u r ttha t h e i n t e n d e d t o p l e a d g u i l t y . He a nd the Go v e r nme nt a g r e e d tha t he wo ul d pl ead to a re du ced char ge ofunl aw ful use o fa com m unica ti on f aci l i t y t o fur the ra drugt r a ffi c k i ngo ffe ns e , 2 1 U. S
. C. §§ 841 (a)( 1), 843(b). On A ugust 1 7, 20 10, the Gover nm ent fi l ed an Info rm atio n ch ar gin g A lca l a w ith th e re d u c ed ch ar ge . A lca la ple d gui l ty to thi s o ffense, si gning a W ai ver o fInd i ctm e n t . H is p lea ag re em en t c on ta in ed th e fo llow in g p ro visi o n: Based on the g ove rnm ent’ s co ncessi ons i n thi s a gr eem en t, th e d efe n d an t k n ow in gly an d vo lu n ta rily w ai ves hi s r i ght t o ap p ea l h i s s entence i n thi s ca se and fur therwaive s hi s rig h t t o chal l enge hi s co nvi c-N o. 11

- 2412 3 ti on or sente nce i n any post- convi cti on p ro ceedi ng, i ncl ud i ng but not l i m i ted to a m oti on p u rs uant to 28 U. S
. C. § 2 2 5 5
. Th i s wa i v e r do e s no t e xt end to an appe alo rpo st
- co nv i ct i o n mot i o n b as ed o n ( 1) a ny p u n i s h me n ti n e x c e s s o fth e s t a t u t o r y ma x i mu m, ( 2) the s en te nc i ngc o ur t’ s r el i an ce o n a ny c o ns ti tu
ti onal l y i m perm i ssible f acto r, and ( 3) i neffecti ve as sis ta n c e o f co u n se l. The sam e day, A l cal a appeared bef or e th e d istr i ct co ur t, whi chc o nduc te d hi s pl ea c o l l o qu y. Dur i ngthe pl eac o l l o qu y, the di st r i ctc o ur t as k ed Alc al a ab o ut the e xtent o fhi s e du cation, wh etherhe ha d ever b e e n de c l ar e d me nt a l l y i nc o mpe t e nto ri ns t i t ut i o na l i z e d, w h et h er h e w as u n d er go in g p sy c h olo gic al or p sy c h iat ric car e at the ti m e, and whether he w as usi ng an y m ed i cati ons orany type ofdrug that w ou ld a ffect hi s co m prehe ns i o n o f th e pr o ce eding s. Alc al a an swe r ed th at he ha d c o m pl et ed “e i g hty ea r s” i n s ch o o la nd “ no ” to the othe r ques tions. The di str i ct c ourtas ked hi m wh ether he had any q ue st io n s e it he r f or coun sel or for th e cou rt ab ou t th e ple ad in g pr oc es s or th e ple a itse lf, an d A lca la an sw er ed n eg at ive ly. T h e d ist r i c t c ou rtals o a sk ed h im w hetherhe w as sati sfi ed w i th hi s co unsel ’ s r epres entat i on thus f ar, and A l cala re sponded affi rm ati vel y. Final l y, the di s t r i c tc o ur ts t a t e d: H ow d o yo u p lea d to the c harg e? That i s, Count 1 of this Inform ation? Gu il ty o r not gu il ty? B ut, before you answ er, ther e i s o ne o therthi ng tha t’ s be en w ai ved her e that Ihave n’tdi scusse d, and that’ s Par ag r aph3 2. I t sa y s he r e th atyou kn o wi ng l y a nd v o l un-4 N o. 11

- 2412 ta r i l y wai ve y o ur r i g ht to appe al th e se nt en ce and y o ur r i g ht to ch al l en g e th i s co nv i ct i o n i n any post- convict ion procee ding, i ncl ud i ng but not l i mi t e d t o a mot i o n pu r s ua nt t o 2 2 5 5 o f S e c t i o n 28 of the Unite d Sta tes C od e. Bu t that thi s wai verdoes not extend to an appeal or post- convi cti on m oti on bas ed on an y pu nish m e n t i n ex cess of th e statu tory m axi m um , o r i fIr el y upon anyf acto r that’ s no t perm i tte d b y th e Const i tuti on. Or, i fi n any w ay, M r . Er i c k s o n i s i ne ffe c t i v e in rep r e s e nt i ngy o u. Do you und er sta n d t h at that’ s wai ved w hen yo u ple ad gui l ty, M r. A l cal a? A l cal a a nsw er ed “Yes. ” The di strict cour t, ther ef or e, accepte d his pl ea. On Augu st2 4, 2 01 0, Al ca l a fi l ed a le tt erwi ththe dist ri ct c ourt, o ste nsibl y without the as si sta nce o f counsel, r equesting to withdra w h is guil ty ple a a nd be tr i ed by j ury. H i s a tto rneym oved t o w i thdraw as counse l, a twh i c h t i me the di s t r i c tc o ur ta pp o i nt ed n ew co u n se l. On D ecem ber2, 20 10, A l cal a fi l ed a m oti on t o wi th dr aw hi s pl ea wi th suppo r tinga ffi dav i t. The dist ri ct cour t denie d hi s m oti on and i m posed a 34 -m onth sente nce, wh i ch am ounted to ti m e se rv ed, as wellas one yea r ofsuperv i sed r el eas e a nd a $100 s p ec ialas ses sm ent. A lca la ap p ea ls, c on te n d in g th at h e d id n o t k n ow in gly and vol untarily w aive hi s r i ght t o appeal and that the di str i ct c ourter re d in d enyi ng hi s m oti on t o w i thdraw h i s pl ea. Because w e fi nd thatA l cal a’ s wai verN o. 11

- 2412 5

was v al i d a nd e nc o m pas se d hi s r i g ht to ap pea lthe dist ri ct c ourt ’ s d en i alo fhi s m oti on t o w i thdraw hi s ple a, our re vi ew i s f or ecl ose d, an d w e d i sm i ss th is a p p ea l.

I I . Discussi on W e r ev iew a d is tr i ctc o ur t’ s den i alo fa mot i o n t o wi th

d ra w a p lea for abu se of d isc re tio n . U ni t e d S t at e s v. Bryant, 55 7 F
. 3d 48 9, 4 95 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 9)
. W he n, h ow ever, the pl eaa g r ee m en t co nt ains a pr o vi si o n in whi chthe de fen dan t w aive s hi s r i ght t o appeal, o ur r evi ew i s for ecl ose d i f( 1) hi s at te m pt to wi th dr aw hi s pl ea fal ls w i th i n the s c op e o f th e w aiv er , s e eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Sh ah , 66 5 F
. 3d 82 7, 83 7 (7 th C ir. 2 0 1 1 ) (“ [W ]e e n for c e a w aiv er on ly if th e di spu te d a ppea lc o m es wi th i n the a m bi t o fthe w aiv er .”), an d (2) h is w aiv er w as va lid , s e eU ni t e d S t at e s v. C ole, 56 9 F
. 3d 774, 77 6 ( 7th Ci r. 2 00 9) ( “A s a ge nera l r ul e, a de fen dan t m aywai ve the r ight to a ppea lhi s co nvic tio n an d se n te n c e, a n d ap p ea l w aiv er s a re ge n er ally val i d i ftheyar e m ade kno w i ngl y a n d vo l untari l y. ”) (in te rn al cita tio n s o m i tt ed ); s e eal s o Unit e d S t at e s v. M cGraw , 5 71 F
. 3d 62 4, 6 30 ( 7th Cir. 2 00 9) ( “A kno wi ng an d volun tary a p p e a l w a iv e rp r e c lu d e s ap p ell ate review
. ”). W e r evi ew d e no vo w hethera w ai veri s e nfo rce abl e. See U nited Sta tes v. Q uin tero , 61 8 F
. 3d 746, 75 0 ( 7th Cir
. 2 01 0). I n doi ng so , we i nter pret the t er m s o fa ple a agr eem ent “ acco rdi n g t o the par ti es’ r eas onabl e e xpectati ons and construe any am bi gui ti es i n the l i ght m ost f avo rabl e t o the defendant. ” Shah , 6 6 5 F
. 3 d a t8 3 7( ci ti ng6 N o. 11

- 2412 Q uin tero , 6 18 F
. 3d at7 50 )
. Addi ti o na l l y, we co ns i derthe p lea coll oqu y, evalu ating w he th er the d istri ct cou rt “pro perl y info rm ed the d efe n dant that the wai verm ay b ar th e rig h t t o a p p ea l.” Id. ( ci ting Q uin tero , 61 8 F
. 3d at 750).

A. Al c a l a ’ s Mot i o n t o Wi t hd r a w Hi s Pl e a Ag r e e me nt Fall s W i t hin t he Scope ofH i s Ap pell at e W ai ver Thi s Cou r t ha s r epe at edly r ec o g ni ze d th at a d efenda nt m aywai ve hi s rightt o a ppea lhi s co nv i ct i o n a nd s en te n c e. Se e, e . g. , C ole, 56 9 F
. 3d at 776. W e hav e no t y et consi dere d, how eve r, wh etheran a pp ealo fa denia lo f a m otion to wi th dr aw a pl ea c o ns ti tu te s ana ppea lo fthe con viction. T ha t is, w e hav e not ad d r e ssed w he th er a defe nd ant’ s wai vero fhis appell ate r i ghts appli es to a m oti on t o w i thdraw a ple a. T h e S i xth Cir cui t r ecent l y c onfro nted thi s quest i on i n U nite d States v. Toth , 6 68 F
. 3d 374 ( 6th Ci r. 2 012), a nd he ld th at su ch w aiver, if valid, p reclud es a d e fend an t’s rig h t t o a p p ea l a d en ial of h is m ot ion t o w i t h d ra w h is pl ea . In Toth , the de fen dan t si g ne d a pl ea a g r ee m en t w i th the Governm ent in w hi ch he wai ved hi s r i ght t o ap p ea l. Id. at37 4. T h e t er m s o ft h e a gr ee m en t w er e s p ec ifi ed to the dist rict court du ring the defendant’s pl ea coll oqu y, includ ing the de fend an t’s kno w in g, volun tary re lin q u ish m en t o f h is a p p ella te righ ts
. Id. a t 37 6- 77
. The d ist ric t c ou rt, in t u rn, in st ru c te d th e d efe n d an t t h at if he acc e pt e d the de a l, h e wo ul d n o tb e ab l e t o wi thd ra w hi s guilty p lea “absent a f ai r and j ust r eas on. ” Id. at37 7.N o. 11

- 2412 7

S ee U n i te d Stat es v. Hernan dez , 242 F. 3d 110, 113 ( 2d Cir. 2001) 1 (per cu riam ) (iden tify ing an ap p eal o f a d en ial o f a m otio n to (co n tin u ed ...) The de fen dan t i ndi cate d tha t he unde r st o o d a nd ac c ep te d th e d ea l. Id. S o m e two
- an d- a- ha l fmonths l ate r, the de fen dan t i nf or m ed the cour t that he had been “ tr icked” by counsel in to p lea d in g gu ilty in sp ite of th e t r u th

. Id. The di st r i ctc o ur t co nduc te d a n e vi den tiar y he ar i ng, c o nc l ud e d that the de fe nd a nth a d n o tde mon s t r a t e d a “f ai r and j ust r eas on forr equestin g the withdra w al, ” see F ED . R. C RIM . P. 11( d)( 2) ( B), and d eni ed hi s m oti on t o w ith d ra w h is p lea

. Toth , 6 68 F
. 3d at377. T he de fen dan t appe al ed, a nd the S i xth Ci r cui t, ho l di ngtha t th e defen d ant’ s wai vero fappealwas val i d and that hi s m oti on t o w ithd raw his p le a fellw ithin th e am bit ofthe w aiver, d ism iss ed h is a p p ea l. Id. at37 7- 79. I n Toth , the Si xth Cir cui t e choed the co ncl usi on re ached by eve ryci rcui t that has co nsi de re d thi s questi on: the m aj or i ty ofci rcu its agre e that a pp eal i ng a denia lo fa m oti on t o w ith d raw a ple a “ i s a n att em pt to conte st a co nvict i on o n appeal

. ” Id. a t 37 8 ( quo ting U nite d States v. E ll iott, 2 6 4 F. 3d 1171, 1174 (10th Cir. 2001 ) ) ( i nter nalquota tio n m ar ks om i tte d). In additi on to the S i xth Ci r cui t, the S ec o nd, Thi r d, F o ur th, Ei g hth, N i nth, a nd Tenth Ci r cui ts ha ve e ac h h el d tha t when a defen dan t wa ives h is r i g htt o a ppea li n a pl ea, he al so wa i v e s h i s r i g htt o a pp e a la de ni a lo fh i s mo ti on to w i thdraw that pl ea. 18 N o. 11

- 2412

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 1 w ithd raw a plea as “an is sue rel ated to the m eri ts ofthe und erly in g co n v ic tio n ” ); U n i t e d S ta te s v . D a n iels , 278 Fed. Ap px. 161, 16 2 (3d C i r . 20 08 ) (“[A]n a p p eal o f a d en ial of a m otio n to w i th d r a w a g u i l t y p l e a c o n st i t u t e s a c h a l l e n g e to a d e fe n d a n t ’s con v iction tha t f alls w ith in th e p lain lang u ag e of an ap p ellate w a iv er p ro v isi o n .”); U n i te d S tat es v. G arner, 283 Fed. A pp x. 176, 178 ( 4th Cir

. 2008) ( “In c hall enging the dist ri ctc o u rt’ s denial of his m otio n to w ithd raw his gu ilty p lea, [ the d efend an t] is c o n te sti n g h is c o n v ic tio n .”) ; U ni t ed Sta t es v. G ra y, 528 F. 3d 1099, 1102 ( 8th Cir

. 2008) ( holding that a know ing, v o lun tar y wai verofa ri ghtt o a ppea l i s s ues r el at i ng t o the “n eg ot i at i on, tak ing [, ] or accep tan ce of [a] gu i l ty p lea o r the f actu al b asis for the p lea” p reclu d es ap p ellate rev iew of a d en ial to w ithd raw the plea) ; U n ite d S ta te s v . M ic h lin , 34 F. 3d 896, 898, 901 ( 9th Cir

. 1994) (holding thata defendan t’ s valid w aiver ofhi s appe l l at e rig hts forec l os es hi s r i ghtt o a ppea l a deni al of h is m o tio n to w ith d ra w h is p le a ); E ll iott, 264 F. 3d at 1174. W e ag r ee wi tho urs i st erc i r cu i ts tha t a defen dan t ch al l en g es hi s co nv i ct i o n whe n he c ha l l en g es the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s d en i alo fhi s m oti on t o w i thdraw a ple a. A ccordi ngl y, the onl y quest i on be f or e us i s whether A l cal a’ s s i gni ng o f h i s pl ea agr eem ent a nd waive r of hi s r i ghts w as knowing and vol untary
.
B. A lcala’s W aiver W as V alid A l cal a a rgues that a s a nati ve Spani sh- speake r w i th ane i g hth g r ade e duca ti o n, he c o ul d no t unde r st an d the a pp el l ate waive r provi si on. H e a l so fau lts hi s pl ea col l oquy pro ceedin gs . H e cl ai m s, fi rs t, thatthe dist ri ctN o. 11

- 2412 9

co ur t f ai l ed to a skhi m abo ute ac h tri alr i g hti ndi vi dually

— “the r i g ht

. . . t o c o nfr o nta nd c r o ss - ex ami ne a dv e r s e wi tne s s e s , t o b e p r o t e c t e d fr o m co mpe l l ed se l f

- i nc r i m i na ti o n, t o t es ti fy and pr es en t ev i den ce , a nd to c o m pelthe a tt en dan ce o fwi tn es se s. ” S ec o nd, h e m aintains th at cou rt prom p ted him f o r “yes or no” an sw ers that, i n abse nce o fa narr ati ve, r endered i t unabl e t o as se ss hi s unde r st an di nga nd c o m pet en ce . I n tu r n, he ar gu es , h e cou ld n ot h av e kn ow in gly a n d vo lu n ta rily agr eed to r el i nquish his r i ght t o appeal, and the w ai ver i s inval i d and un en forceab l e. A l though he does not s t a t e s o s pe c i fi c a l l y, h i s c l a i m o fi nv a l i d wa i v e re xt e nd s to hi s wai ve r ’ s sc o pe: i fhe c o ul d n ot under st an d the p r o vis ion atall, he co u ld n oth av e u n d er st oo d th at h is appeal o fa m oti on t o w i thdraw a ple a co nsti tuted an appealo f h i s co nvi cti on. In shor t, he di d not k no wi ng l y, v o l unt ar i l y g i ve up hi s r ight to a ppea lthe d istri ct cou rt’s j ud gm en t on th a t p articu lar m atter. W e di sag re e. W ai ve ro fthe ri gh t to a ppea li s va l i d whena d e f en d an t k n ow in gly an d vo lu n ta rily re lin q u ish es h is rig h t. Se eSh ah , 6 65 F
. 3d at8 37
. In a ssessi ngthe kn ow ing an d volun tary ch aract er of a d efend an t’s w ai ver, the cour t s houl d l end parti cul arcr edence t o th e d efe n d an t’s rep re se n ta tio n s t o th e c ou r t d u rin g h is pl eacoll oquy, dur i ngwhi chhe i s o bl i g at ed to t el lthe tr u th

. Se eKoons v. U ni t e d S t ates , 63 9 F
. 3d 348, 35 2 ( 7th C ir. 20 11 ); H utc hin gs v . U nited Sta tes , 61 8 F
. 3d 69 3, 69 9 (7t h C ir. 20 1 0). H is w aiv er is kn ow in g a n d vo lu n ta ry if h e “ u n d er st an d [s] t h e c h oic e c on fro n tin g h i m an d

. . . und er sta nd [ s] thatchoi ce i s hi s t o m ake

. ” U n i t e d S ta tes10 N o. 11

- 2412

ex rel
. Wil li am s v. D eRobert is , 71 5 F
. 2d 1174, 11 82- 83 ( 7th Cir
. 19 83) ( disc ussi ng waiv ero fthe ri ght t o trialby j u ry ); s e e a l s o Un i t e d S t a t e s v . Johns on , 53 4 F
. 3d 690 ( 7th C ir. 20 08 ) (“[W ]aiv er is like ly kn o w i n g a n d vo lu n ta ry if th e defen dan t g av e i t f o rs tr at eg i c r ea so ns . . . . ”). The cour t m ay al so consi der the f act that the defendant w as re prese n te d by co unsel, wh i ch, bar ring an i neffecti ve assist an ce c l ai m , s uppo r ts a c o nc l us i o n tha t th e defen d an t’s w aiv er w as info rm ed an d st ra te gic
. S e eDe Rob e r t is , 714 F. 2d at 1182 ( “The purpose ofthe const i tuti onal guar an ty ofa ri ght t o counseli s t o prot ect an acc used fro m co nvi cti on r esul tin g fro m hi s o w n i gnor ance o f hi s l ega land co n st i tuti onalr i ghts. ” ( quoting Johns on v. Z erbst, 3 04 U. S
. 4 58 , 4 65 ( 19 38 ) ) ( i nt erna lo m i ss i o ns om itted ))
. Alc al a’ s al l eged l an g ua g e di ffi cul ti es a nd l ev elo fe duc at ion m i gh t b e t ro u b lin g if h e re p re se n te d h im se lf p ro se or if h e a lleg ed ine ffec tiv e a ss ist an c e o f co u n se l. H e di d not do so, however, and h e m ake s no such char ge ag ain sth is or igin al t ria l co u n se l. T h es e e lem e n t s o f h is bac kgrou nd , of w hich the d istri ct cou rt w as aw are du ring hi s pl ea col l oquy, do notdefeato ur pre su m p tion th at h is re sp on se s t o th e c ou rt ’s in q u iries w er e t ru th fu l, s e eKoons , 639 F.3d at35 2; B ridg e m a n v . U nited Sta tes , 229 F. 3d 58 9, 592 ( 7th Ci r. 20 00)
. N ordoes the f act that Alc al a’ s r es po ns es wer e l ar g ely “ y es ” o r“ no , ” wi th o ut m or e, d efe at th is p re su m p t i on . Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. M e ssi no , 5 5 F
. 3d 12 41 , 1 25 3- 54 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 5) ( ho l di ng th at th e defen dan t was no t depr i ve d o f m ean i ng ful ple a co l l oquy because he was ask ed onl y quest i ons re quir i ng “ ye s” or“no ” a nsw er s)
. W hi l e we st re ss thatN o. 11

- 2412 11

narr ati ve re sponses i n a p lea col l oquy a re superi orto i nquir i es fro m the court that el i ci t “ yes ” o r “no” answ er s, s e e, e . g. , U nite d States v. G roll, 99 2 F
. 2d 755, 76 0 n .7 ( 7th Cir
. 19 93) ( “[ S] i m ple affi rm ati ve o r negat i ve answ er s t o th e c ou rt ’s ro t e in te rro ga to rie s g ive u s p au se in fi n d i n gt ha t [ th e d e fe n d a n t ] e n t e r e d h e rp l e a kn o wingly. ”); U nite d States v. Fountain , 77 7 F
. 2d 351, 35 6 ( 7th Cir
. 19 85) ( “Sim p le affi rm ati ve ornega ti ve answ er s o r r es po ns es whi ch m erely mimi c th e i ndi ct m en t o rthe p lea agreem en t can not fu ll y elucid ate th e d efend an t’s sta te ofm i nd as r equi re d b y Rul e 1 1. ”) , o ur r evi ew o f th e p l ea col l oquy, the f act that A l acal a was r epres ented by counsel, a n d the f act that A l cal a was pro vi ded with a t ransl ato r du ring the co l l oquy e vi nce that he com prehended the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s inquir i es. W e s i m i l ar l y fi nd unpersuasi ve A l cal a’ s co ntenti on th at h e c oul d not wai ve hi s r i ght t o a t ri aland appeal unti lthe dist ri ct c ou rt and hi s a tto rneyhad apprai sed hi m o fea ch a nd e ve r y e l emento fa t r i al

. Dur i ngthe col l oquy, the dist ri ct c ourti nfo rm ed hi m that, by ple ading gui l ty, he woul d be g i vi ng up hi s r i ght t o a j ur y t r i al, i nc l udi ngc al l i ngwi tn es se s, fur th erpr es en ting his case , and sub m itti ng his case to th e j ury f o r a dete rm i nati on o fhi s guil t o r i nnocence. H e underst oo d that h e c ou ld ch oo se be tw ee n be in g jud ge d by a g r o u p o f h is peers o r ple ading t o the c ri m e a nd acc epti ng the Gover nm ent’ s s up portand sent enci ng r eco m m endati ons. That und er sta nd i ng, co up led with hi s l aw yer ’ s a dvic e and t h e fac t that he deci ded to pl ead afterl i ste ni ng to se ve ra l G ov er n m en t w itn es se s t e st ify a ga in sth im , in d icate s that hi s pl ea and w aiv er w er e s tr ate gi c cho i ces12 N o. 11

- 2412

a nd , thu s , v a l i d. Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Engl and, 50 7 F
. 3d 581, 586 (7t h Ci r. 20 07) ( “A co urt does not have to gi ve the defendant a c ra sh c ours e in cr i m i nall aw o r tr i al proce du re befor e a defendant’s waive r ofh i s r i ght t o c ou n se l w ill be v olu n ta ry .”); cf. D eRobert is , 715 F.2 d at 1182 -83 (noting, in e v a lu ating th e vali d ity ofa defe nd an t’s w ai vero fhi s r i ght t o a j ury tr i al, that “a d efe n d an t w h o is a w ar e t h a t t h e c h oic e h e fa c es is be twe enb eingj udg ed bya g r o up o fh is fel l o w ci ti ze ns or a j ud ge m ay con clud e intell igently t h a t h is l aw yer’s advi ce, bas ed upon his exper i ence and his kno w l edge of l aw and proc ed ure , i s ent itl ed to controlling w eight” ). Favo rabl y c onst rui ng hi s a rgum ent, A l cal a’ s s tr onge st c lai m i s that he did notundersta nd that, o nce ac cepted bythe c o ur t, hi s pl ea cons ti tu te d the b as i s f o rhi s co nv i c t i o n, a nd , a s p a r to fh i s c o nv i c t i o n, a n a t t e mpt to w i thdraw i t w oul d f al l w i thi n the sco pe ofh is a p p e l l a t e w a i v e r . S u c h s p e c i f i c s w e r e n o t c o mm unicated b y e i th erthe di st r i ctc o ur t o rc o uns eldur i ng the c ol l oquy. M or eov er, nei therthe c ou rt norco unsel expli ci tl y s tat ed that, o nce a ccepted bythe cour t, he ha d no r i g htt o r e v o k e h i s p l e a a nd tha th i s ab i l i t y t o do so h in ge d on th e cou rt ’ s d isc re tio n . Seegene rally U ni t e d S t at e s v. Re dm ond, 667 F.3d 8 6 3 , 8 7 0-71 (7th C ir. 2 0 1 2 ) ( “ T h e r e i s n o ab s o l u t e ri g h tt o wi th d r a w a gui l ty ple a.”). Arguabl y, the ter m s o fhi s pl ea did not express l y a nd unam bi guousl y c l ar i fy that he coul d not c ha ng e hi s m i nd , s e eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Sa ke l l ar i on , 64 9 F
. 3d 634, 638-39 (7th C ir. 2 011) (“W e enforce ap p ell ate w aivers w h en th e i r t er m s a re ex p re ss an d u n am b igu ou s . . . . ”N o. 11

- 2412 13 ( i nt erna lquo ta ti o n marks o m i tt ed) ) , a nd we co ns true am b igu itie s in h is fa vo r, s e eSh ah , 66 5 F
. 3d at 837. N everth el es s, the t er m s o fthe pl ea a g r ee m en t an d th e co l l o quy r ev ea l t hat A lcala kn ow in g l y a nd vo lu n ta r i l y w aiv ed h is rig h t t o a p p ea l an d inh er en tly a c c ept ed t he r i s kth a th e mi g h tr e g r e tth a td e c i s i o n . He coul d not hav e r easonabl y e xpected that the di str i ct cour t would fi nd hi m “no t guil ty” afterhe ha d pled gui l ty. Once a c c ep ted bythe cour t, hi s guil ty ple a was ta n ta m ou n t t o h is c on vic tio n, an d th e t er m s of h is ple a a gr eem en t c lea rl y s tat e that he agr eed to waive h i s r igh t t o a p p ea l his co n vic tio n, s e es upra P a r t I
. He ag r ee d t o abi d e bya l lde ci si o ns o fthe c o ur t, r es er ving hi s r i ght t o appeal o n thr ee speci fi c a n d exhausti ve grou nd s: (1) an y pu nish m en t in exc ess of the stat ut ory m ax im u m ; (2) a se n te n c e b as ed on a c on st itu tio n ally i m p er m i ssibl e f acto r; and ( 3) i neffecti ve ass i sta nce o f c ou n se l. Se es upra Pa r t I
. None o ftho se e xc ept i o ns und er l i e thi s app eal

. A t w or st, h e d i d not fully a pp re ci ate that he m i ght wis h to change hi s m i nd lat er , a nd that he co uld notbec om e un- convi cted e xcept atthe disc re ti on o fthe cour t. Yet, such i s the r isk w i th pl eab ar g a in in g a n d w aiv er . Se eM cGraw , 57 1 F
. 3d at 630- 31 (“[P]l ea-barga in ap p eal w aivers i nv olve ri sk: ‘[ b]y bi nd i ng ones el f one ass um es the ri sk of future c h an ges i n ci rcum sta nces i n l i ght o fw h ich one’ s ba rg ai n m ay pr o ve t o ha ve b ee n a b ad o ne . Th at is the r i ski nhe r en t i n al lco ntra cts; theyl i m i t the par ti es’ abi l i ty to ta ke ad va n ta ge o fw h at m ay h ap p en ov er th e p er iod in w hi ch the contr act i s in effect. ’ ” ( quoti ng U ni t e d Sta tes v. B o w nes , 4 05 F
. 3d 63 4, 6 36 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 5) ) )
. Tha t th e14 N o. 11

- 2412

r i skmate r i al i ze d f o rAl ca l a d o es no t trum p the kno wi ng an d v o l unt ary na tu r e o fhi s pl ea a nd wai ve rwhenhe a c c e pt e d the Go v e r nme nt ’ s de a l

. Ou rr e v i e w i s f o r e c l o s e d.

I I I . Concl usio n Forthe f or ego i ng r eas ons, we D ISMISS th is a p p ea l.

5- 3- 12