FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T APR 2, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 9- 13 42 8 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 8- 20 76 7- CR-UU UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us FELICIA TRIANA, a.k .a. Co m adre, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So uthe rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Ap ril 2, 2 01 0) Befo re DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e, CARNES an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:App el la ntFel ic iaTrian a p le d g ui lt y un de r a p le a ag reem en t t o c on sp ira cy to po ss es s wi th in te ntto di st rib ut e 5 0 g ram s o r m or e o f cra ck co cai ne , invi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 8 46 . The p le a ag reem en t co nt ai ne d a n app eal waiv er. Tri an a was se nt en cedto th e m an da to ry m in im um of 1 20 m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t. Onap pe al , sh e arg ue s t ha t t he di st ric t co urt p la in ly erredby fail in g t o m ak e a fac tu al fin di ng reg ard in g t he am ou ntof c oc ai ne att rib ut ab le to he r. She als o a rg ue s t ha t t he di st ric t co urt erredby decl in in g t o c om pe l t he go ve rn m en t t o d eb rie f he r. I. Tria na ’s firs t ar gu m en t i s t ha t t he di st ric t co urt erredby fail in g t o m ak e a factua l fi nd in g re ga rd in g t he am ou ntof c oc ai ne attrib ut ab le to he r. Thi s co urt
rev ie ws the di stric t co urt’s dru g- qu an ti ty det erm in at io n fo r cl ear e rro r. Uni te d St at es v. Za

pa ta , 13 9 F .3d13 55 , 13 57 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ) (ci ti ng Uni te d Sta tes v. Ja cks on , 11 5 F .3d84 3, 8 45 (11 th Cir . 19 97 )). The reco rdin th is cas e sh ows th at th e p le a ag reem en t en te redin to be twee n Tri an a an d the go ve rn m en t p ro vi de d t ha t Tria na ’s off

en se in vo lv edat l eas t 5 0, b utles s t ha n 1 50 , gram s o f cra ckco cai ne . Afte r Tria naen te redhe r gu il ty ple a p ur su an t t o t hi s ag reem en t, the pro ba ti on of fic e p rep areda Pre- Sen te nc e In ve st ig at io n re po rt ( PSI) whi chatt rib ut edto Tria na79 gra m s o f cra ckco cai ne . Desp it e th e te rm s o f he r pl ea ag reem en t an d h er gu il ty ple a, Tria nafil eda writ te n o bjec ti on in di cat in g t ha t al th ou gh sh e p os se ss ed 279 gra m s o f cra ckco cai ne , sh e d idno t i nt en d t o d is tri bu te th atam ou ntan d t ha t

in st ead , as acrac k a dd ic t, s he pe rs on al ly use d h al f of th e 7 9 g ram s s he po ss es se d,
an d i nt en de d t o d is tri bu te les s t ha n 5 0 g ram s. At s en te nc in g, t he di st ric t co urt fa il edto res ol ve Trian a’s ob jecti on an d
m ad e n o d et erm in at io n a s t o the am ou ntof dru gs th atco ul d b e at tri bu te d t o h er. Thi s i s b ecau se th e d is tri ctco urt fo un d t ha t t he ap pl ic ab il it y of am an da to ry m in im um pe na lt y ob vi at edth e n eedfora fi nd in g a s t o d ru g qua nt it y . Trian a h ad al read y en te reda kn owi ng an d v ol un ta ry pl ea o f gu il ty to p os se ss io n wi th in te ntto di st rib ut e o ve r 50 gra m s o f cra ckco cai ne , an o ffen se whi chcarr ie d am an da to ry m in im um sen te nc e o f 12 0 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. The refo re, the di st ric t co urt fo un d tha t i t was un ne ces sa ry to cal cu la te th e ex actqu an ti ty of drug s at tri bu tabl e to Trian a an d s en te nc edhe r to th e m an da to ry m in im um sen te nc e o f 12 0 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. W e n eedno t re vi ew th is fin di ng by the di st ric t co urt b ecau se we co nc lu de th atTrian a v ol un ta ril y

an d fr eel y

waiv edhe r ri gh t t o app eal he r se nt en ce. Thi s co urt h as he ldth atap pe al waiv ers are v al idif kno win gl y an d v ol un ta ril y

en te red in to . Uni te d Sta tes v. Bu ch an an , 13 1 F .3d10 05 , 10 08 (11 thCir . 19 97 ) (ci ti ng Uni te d Sta tes v. Bu sh er t , 99 7 F .2d13 43 , 13 50 (11 th Cir . 19 93 )). To en su re tha t an ap pe al waiv er i s kno win gl y an d v ol un ta ril y

en te redin to , we requi re tha t t he 3di st ric t co urt s pe ci fic al ly que st io n t he de fen da ntco nc ern in g t he sen te nc e ap pe al

waiv er dur in g t he Ru le 11 co ll oquy. Id
. W he re an ap pe al waiv er was kn owi ng ly
an d v ol un ta ril y

en te redin to , th is co urt wi ll di sm is s an y ap pe al th atvi ol at es th at waiv er. Id
. W e h av e h el d t ha t an ap pe al waiv er i nc lu de s a wa iv er o f th e ri gh t t o ap pe al ev enbl at an t erro r. Uni te d Sta tes v. Ho wl e , 16 6 F .3d11 66 , 11 69 (11 th Cir
. 19 99 ). Furth er, we h av e h el d t ha t a s en te nc e ap pe al waiv er i s en fo rceabl e as to th e is su e o f drug am ou nt s at tri bu te d t o ade fen da nt . Uni te d Sta tes v. Pea se , 24 0 F .3d 93 8, 9 42 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). The reco rdin th is cas e sh ows th atth e d is tri ctco urt fo ll owe d the requi red pr oc edur e an d s pe ci fic al ly que st io ne d Tri an a co nc ern in g t he ap pe al waiv er dur in g th e Ru le 11 co ll oquy. The di st ric t co urt cl earl y ex pl ai ne d the waiv er t o Tri an a an d th e ex cep ti on s t o tha t wai ve r. Trian a st at edth atsh e u nd ers to odan d t ha t s he was kn owi ng ly andvo lu nt ari ly accep ti ng th e te rm s o f th e p le a ag reem en t, i nc lu di ng th e wai ve r pr ov is io n. Acco rd in gl y , we con cl ud e th atth e ap pe al waiv er i s v al id
an d, u nl es s an ex cep ti onto th atwaiv er ap pl ie s, thi s co urt m us t d is m is s Tri an a’s ap pe al
. Tria na ’s pl ea ag reem en t al lo wedhe r to ap pe al in on ly thre e si tu at io ns –( 1) if th e se nt en cedex ceed edth e st atut ory m ax im um sen te nc e; (2) if t he sen te nc e im po se d was th e res ul t o f anup wardde pa rtu re fro m th e g ui de li ne ran ge ; o r (3 ) if 4th e g ov ern m en t ap pe al edth e se nt en ce. We con cl ud e th atno ne of t he ex cep ti on s

to th e ap pe al waiv er ap pl y in th is cas e. The 1 20 m on th sen te nc e im po se d d idno t
ex ceedth e st atut ory

m ax im um of l ife in pri so n, d idno t re su ltfro m anup ward de pa rtu re fro m

th e g ui de li ne ran ge of 1 20 -1 35 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t, an d t he go ve rn m en t d idno t ap pe al Trian a’s se nt en ce. Acco rd in gl y , we con cl ud e th at Tria nawaiv edhe r ri gh t t o app eal he r se nt en ce– ev enba se d o n d ru g a m ou nt at tri bu ti on–a ndth is asp ectof h er ap pe al wil l b e d is m is se d. II. Tria na ’s sec on d a rg um en t o n app eal is th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredwhen it fai le d t o c om

pe l t he go ve rn m en t t o d eb rie f he r. Trian a arg ue s t ha t t he go ve rn m en t
was requi redto de br ie f he r by the term s o f th e p le a ag reem en t an d t ha t, b y no t do in g s o, t he go ve rn m en t b reac he d t he ag reem en t. The sen te nc e ap pe al waiv er do es no t p rev en t Tri an a fro m rai si ng th is is su e o n app eal be cau se th is co urt h as he ldth atanap pe al waiv er d oe s n otpre ve nta de fen da ntfro m ap pe al in g a n a ll eg ed br each of t he pl ea ag reem en t. Uni te d Sta tes v. C op elan d , 38 1 F 3d . 11 01 , 11 05 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 4) . This co urt re vi ews de no vo whet he r th e g ov ern m en t b reac he d th e p le a ag reem en t. Id
. at11 04
. Acco rd in g t o t he go ve rn m en t, i t d eci de d n otto pro vi de Trian a wit h t he op po rtu ni ty to p ro vi de ass is ta nc e b ecau se whi le Trian a was on bo ndawai ti ng 5se nt en ci ng in th is cas e, sh e was arre st edon st at e ch arg es forpo ss es si on of c oc ai ne

an d t am pe rin g wi th ph y si cal ev id en ce. Inhe r ob jecti on s t o t he PSI, Tri an a as se rte d tha t b y

refu si ng to de br ie f he r inreg ard s t o h er co op erat io n a ndby refu si ng to all ow h er t o c oo pe rat e wit h t he go ve rn m en t, the go ve rn m en t v io la te d th e p le a ag reem en t an d t ha t s he was e nt it le d t o h av e th e d is tri ctco urt o rd er sp eci fic pe rfo rm an ce b y

th e g ov ern m en t. The di st ric t co urt d en ie d t hi s m ot io n, fin di ng th at , un de r th e te rm s o f th e p le a ag reem en t, i t was so le ly in t he di sc ret io n of th e g ov ern m en t wh ethe r to see k h er co op erat io n and , th eref or e, sp eci fic pe rfo rm an ce was un av ai labl e. Alt ho ug h t he go ve rn m en t i s b ou ndby pro m is es itm ak es to a de fen da ntin
or de r to in du ce a g ui lt y

pl ea, Sa nt ob el lo v. New Y ork, 40 4 U.S. 2 57 , 26 2 (1 97 1) , th e g ov ern m en t ca nn otbe co m pe ll edto do so m ethi ng th atitdi d n otag ree t o d o i n th e fi rs t p la ce. The pl ea ag reem en t en te redin to inth is cas e is un am bi gu ou s i n t ha t itdi d n otex pl ic it ly, or

ev enim pl ic it ly, ob li ga te th e g ov ern m en t t o g iv e Tria nath e op po rtu ni ty to p ro vi de subs ta nt ia l as si st an ce. In st ead , th e p le a ag reem en t ob li ga te d Tri an a to co op erat e fu ll y with t he go ve rn m en t b y

pro vi di ng tru th fu l an d
co m pl et e in fo rm at io n a ndtes ti m on y wh en ca ll ed up on by the go ve rn m en t, b y ap pe ari ng at h eari ng s an d t ria ls as may b e re qu ir ed by the go ve rn m en t, an d if
re qu es te d by the go ve rn m en t, wo rk in g i n an u nd erco ve r ro le . The p le a ag reem en t 6wen t o n t o p ro vi de th atth e g ov ern m en t “ res erv e[d ] th e ri gh t” to ev al ua te th e

na tu re an d e xt en t o f Tria na ’s coo pe rat io n a ndto m ak e h er co op erat io n, o r la ck th ereo f, kn ownto th e co urt atth e ti m e o f se nt en ci ng . Becau se th e p le a ag reem en t in no way requi redth e g ov ern m en t t o d eb rie f Trianaor t o p ro vi de he r wit h t he op po rtu ni ty to p ro vi de ass is ta nc e, itcan no t b e sa idth atth e g ov ern m en t b reac he d th e ag reem en t b y

no t d oi ng so . Acco rd in gl y , we con cl ud e th atth e d is tri ctco urt’s

1 refu sa l t o c om

pe l t he go ve rn m en t t o d o s o was no t erro ne ou s. 2 III.

This court has he ld that the g overnme nt has “a power , not a duty , to file a motion when a 1 defe ndant has substantially assisted.” United States v. Forne y , 9 F.3d 1492, 1500 ( 11th Cir. 1998) (quoting W

ade v. U nited States , 504 U.S. 181, 185 (1992)). It would make little sense to require the g overnme nt to give a defe ndant the opportunity to cooper ate whe n it has the discretion to not file a substantial a ssistance motion even a fter suc h cooperation is completed. There are two case s from other c ircuits that, although not cited by Appellant, may

seem 2 to support a diffe rent outcome in this case. See U nited States v. Ringling , 988 F.2d 504, 505 ( 4th Cir. 1993) (holdingthat g overnme nt was re quired to debrief de fenda nt prior to sentenc ing where plea a gree ment promised that g overnme nt would make coope ration known to cour t at the time of sentenc ing) ; United States v. Laday , 56 F.3d 24, 26 ( 5th Cir. 1995) (holding tha t languag e similar to plea agree ment in Ringling obligated g overnme nt to interview def endant, e ven if g overnme nt believed that any

assistance that defe ndant might of fer would be insubstantial). Howe ver, those case s are distinguishable. In both Ringling and Laday , the g overnme nt was oblig ated unde r the express terms of the plea

agree ment to inform the cour t of the def

endant’ s cooper ation at sentenc ing. T he cour

ts in those cases f

ound an implicit obligation to interview the defe ndant based on this express obligation. In the ca se at ba r, howe ver, the g overnme nt was expressly not require d to inform the cour t of Appellant’s a ssistance if it fe lt that it was not warra nted. Acc ording ly , it would make no sense to r ead a n implicit obl iga

tion to int ervie w Appellant in this case . 7Insu m , th e ap pe al is di sm is se d t o t he ex te ntth atTrian a is ch al le ng in g h er

se nt en ce b as edon th e dru g qua nt it y attrib ut ab le to he r. Furth er, we aff irm th e di st ric t co urt’s re fu sa l t o c om pe l t he go ve rn m en t t o d eb rie f Tria na . AFFIRMED in pa rt and DISMI SSED in pa rt.

8