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 6-3-2008 

# U SA v . M orri son 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 . 06-1526

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 authori 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 . M orri s on" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1076. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1076NOT 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- 1526 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. GR E GOR Y M OR RI S ON a / k / a B a h a yh G r egoryM orr i s on, A p p e l l a n t 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 E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia D . C . C ri m inal N o . 0 4 -cr-05 8 2 -1 ( H onor abl e Eduar do C . R obr eno) Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

A pr i l 17, 2008 B e f o re : S C IR IC A , C hi ef

Judge , A M B R O a n d F IS H E R , C i r cui tJudges . ( Fi l ed: J une 3, 2008) OPI NI ON O F THE COURT S C IR IC A , C hi ef

Judge . G re g o ryM o rriso n p lea d e d g u iltyto c o n sp ira c y , 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 7 1 , an d id e n tityth e f t, 18 U . S. C . § 1028( a) ( 7) , ( b) ( 1) ( D ) , ( c) ( 3) ( A ) , and ( f) . H e appe al s hi s j udgm entofU S S G § 5 H 1 . 4 all o w s a d istri ct co u rtto g ran t a de p arture b ase d u p o n a d ef en d an t’ s 1 phy s i cal condi t i on. M orr i s on does notappea l the C our t ’ s deni al of hi s m ot i on, w hi ch he c o n c e d e s is n o t a p p e a la b le . 2 se n ten c e . B e c a u se M o rriso n k n o w in g lya n d v o lu n tar ilyw a iv e d h is a p p e llate rig h ts in h is p le a a g re e m e n t, w e w ill a f f ir m . I. O n Ja n u a ry2 6 , 2 0 0 7 , the D istric t C o u rt im p o se d a se n ten c e o f 4 1 m o n th s, w ith in the gui del i nes s ent ence r ange of 37 t o 46 m onths , thr ee y ear s of s upervi s ed r el eas e, $11, 596. 27 of r es t i tut i on, and a $200 s peci al as s es s m ent . T es t i m onyw as hear d atthe se n ten c in g h e a rin g c o n c e rn in g M o rriso n ’s m e d ica l co n d iti o n . M o rriso n is a p a ra p leg ic a n d c o n f in e d to a w h e e lch a ir, an d h a s s u f f e re d f ro m v a rio u s a ilm e n ts re late d to h is co n d it ion sinc e b eing inca rce rated . T h e C o u rtd en ied M o rri so n ’s m o ti o n fo r a d o w n w ard d ep arture u n d er U n it ed S tat es S en tenc ing G u ideline § 5 H 1 . 4 an d h is r eq u est fo r a 1 var i ance fr om the gui del i nes s ent ence r ange unde r18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) ( 2) ( D ) , w hi ch re q u ire s c o u rts to c o n sid e r th e n e e d f o r th e se n ten c e “ to p ro v id e th e d e f e n d a n t w ith neede d . . . m edi cal car e . . . i n the mosteff ect i ve manner . ” M orr i s on fi l ed a t i m el ynot i ce of appe al , cont endi ng the D i s tr i ctC our tfai l ed t o gi ve meani ngful cons i der at i on t o 18 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a )(2 )(D ). T h e G o v e rn m e n t th e n f iled a m o tio n to e n f

o rc e th e a p p e llate w a iv e r i n M o rr is o n ’s p le a a g re e m e n t a n d to d is m is s th e a p p e a l. T he D i s tr 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) ( 1) . W e have s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i onT he p l ea agreem ent s t at es: 2 I n excha nge forthe undert aki ngs m ade bythe governm enti n ent er i ng thi s pl ea agr eement , the def

endantvol unt ar i l yand expr es s l yw ai ves al l r i ght s t o appea l or col l at er al l yatt ack the def endant ’ s convi ct i on, s ent ence , oranyotherm att err el at i ng t o thi s pr os ecut i on, w hethers uch a r i ghtof appe al orcol l at er al att ack a r i s es under 18 U . S. C . § 3742, 28 U . S. C . § 1291, 28 U . S. C . § 2255, oranyotherpr ovi s i on of l a w. a . N o tw ith sta n d in g th e w a iv e r p ro v isio n a b o v e , if th e g o v e rn m e n t ap p e a ls fr om the s ent ence , then the def endantm ayfi l e a di r ectappea l of hi s s ent ence . b. I f the governm entdoes notappea l , then notw i ths t andi ng the w ai ver pr ovi s i on s etfor th i n par agr aph 7 above , the def endantm ayfi l e a di r ectappea l but m a yra ise o n lyc laim s th a t: (c o n tin u e d ...) 3 overthe appe al butr efr ai n fr om exer ci s i ng ourj ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew the mer i t s w her e a c ri m in a l d e f

e n d a n t h a s e f

f e c tiv e ly w a iv e d th e ri g h t to a p p e a l in a p le a a g re e m e n t. U ni t ed S ta tes v . G w in n e tt , 4 8 3 F .3 d 2 0 0 , 2 0 3 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). II. W e e n f o rc e a w a iv e r o f

th e rig h t to a p p e a l if th e w a iv e r is e n ter e d in to k n o w in g ly a n d v o lu n ta ri ly, u n le s s it w o rk s a m is c a rr ia g e o f ju s tic e . U

ni t ed Stat es v. Khat tak , 273 F . 3 d 5 5 7 , 5 5 8 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 1 ) . We s tr i c t l yc o n s tru e th e l a n g u a g e o f th e wa i v e r , b u ti f

we fi nd the w ai verappl i es byi t s t erm s , i ti s the def endant ’ s bur den t o s how the w ai ver s h o u ld n o t b e e n f

o rc e d . Id . at562–63. I f the def endantfai l s t o do s o, w e af fi r m w i thout re a c h in g th e m e ri ts o f

th e a p p e a l. G w in n e tt , 4 8 3 F .3 d a t 2 0 6 . O u r r e v ie w is p le n a ry. Khat tak , 273 F. 3d at560. M o rriso n ’s p lea a g re e m e n t co n tain e d a n a p p e llate w a iv e r in w h ich h e a g re e d to w ai ve hi s r i ght s t o appea l orcol l at er al l yatt ack hi s convi ct i on ors ent ence . T he appe al 2( . . . cont i nued) 2 1. T he def endant ’ s s ent ence exce eds the s t atut orym axi m um ; or 2. T he s ent enci ng j udge err oneous l ydepart ed upw ar d fr om the otherw i s e appl i cabl e s ent enci ng gui del i ne r ange. I f the def endantdoes appea l pur s uantt o thi s par agr aph, no i s s ue maybe pr es ent ed bythe def

endanton appea l otherthan thos e des cr i bed i n thi s par agr aph. 4 fa ll s w ith in the lang u ag e o f th e w aive r, an d n o ex ce p ti o n ap p li es. T h e D istri ct C o u rt conduct ed a pl ea c ol l oquy , as r equi r ed byFed. R . C r i m . P. 11( b) , and found M orr i s on ent er ed i nt o the pl ea a gr eementknow i ngl y , vol unt ar i l y , and i nt el l i gent l y . M orr i s on agr ees , butcont ends the w ai veri s ambi guous beca us e the D i s tr i ctC our t , dur i ng the pl ea col l oquy , t ol d M orr i s on he w as gi vi ng up the r i ghtt o appea l and coul d onl yappea l i f the D istri ct C o u rtim p o sed an “il lega l” sen tenc e. M o rri so n co n tend s the D istri ct C o u rt e x p a n d e d th e sc o p e o f

th e e x c e p tio n s to h is a p p e llate w a iv e r b ytellin g h im h e c o u ld appea l an “i l l egal ” s ent ence . W e di s agr ee. I ti s cl earfr om the r ecor d thatthe D i s tr i ct C o u rt w a s s u m m a ri z in g th e te rm s o f th e p le a a g re e m e n t to a s s u re M o rr is o n u n d e rs to o d it. T he D i s tr i ctC our ti s notr equi r ed t o r eci t e the ent i r e pl ea a gr eement , and M orr i s on t es t i fi ed thathe r ead the pl ea a gr eement , di s cus s ed i tw i th hi s l aw y er , under s t ood the a g re e m e n t, a n d w a s p ro m is e d n o th in g b e y o n d w h a t w a s la id o u t in th e p le a a g re e m e n t. M orr i son cit es U

ni t ed Stat es v. Tw eetera s s u p p o rt, b u t th e re th e d istric t co u rt f a iled to even di s cus s the appe l l at e w ai verpr ovi s i on w i th the def endantatthe pl ea c ol l oquy . 257 F .3 d 1 4 , 2 6

– 2 7 (1 s t C ir . 2 0 0 1 ).E ven i f w e coul d r eac h the mer i t s , w e w oul d aff i rm . M orr i s on cont ends , fi r s t , that 3 the D i s tr i ctC our tdi d notgi ve meani ngful cons i der at i on t o “the nee d forthe s ent ence i m po sed . . . t o p rovi de the defen dan tw i th n eeded . . . m edical care . . . i n the m ost eff ect i ve manner. . . . ” 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) ( 2) ( D ) . H e bel i eves thi s i s evi dentfr om t he D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s la c k o f

re f e re n c e to § 3 5 5 3 (a )( 2 )( D ) i n its e x p la n a tio n o f th e s e n te n c e . S p ec ifi c re fe ren ce to ea ch fa ctor is un n ec essa ryw h ere the re co rd m ak es c lear the co u rt to o k th e f

a c to rs in to a c c o u n t. U

ni t ed Stat es v. C ooper , 4 3 7 F .3 d 3 2 4 , 3 2 9 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). T her e w as s ubs t ant i al t es t i m onyand ar gum enton M orr i s on’ s need f orbett erm edi cal car e. T he C our tfound, i n deny i ng M orr i s on’ s m ot i on fordow nw ar d departur e under U S S G § 5 H 1 .4 , tha t th e B u re a u o f P riso n s w o u ld p ro v id e M o rriso n w ith a d e q u a te m edi cal car e. W hi l e thi s di s cus s i on w as i n r efe r ence t o the dow nw ar d departur e, nott he § 3553( a) fac t or s , i ti s cl earfr om the cons i der abl e evi dence and di s cus s i on r egar di ng M orr i s on’ s m edi cal car e thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tgave § 3553( a) ( 2) ( D ) m eani ngful cons i der at i on. M orr i s on al s o cont ends the C our tfai l ed t o t ake s t eps t o obt ai n addi t i onal evi dence t o i nform i t s el f as t o the exa ctnatur e of M orr i s on’ s phy s i cal i m pai r m entand r el at ed c o m p lica tio n s. T h e e x ten siv e tes tim o n ya n d e v id e n c e p ro v id e d th e C o u rt w ith a d e q u a te evidence w i th w hich t o co nsi der the § 35 53 (a) fact ors. 5 W her e, as her e, the w ai veri s val i d, w e mayonl yr eac h the mer i t s t o avoi d a “mi s carr i age of

j us t i ce. ” Khatak , 273 F. 3d at563. M orr i s on cont ends , beca us e the B ur eau of

Pr i s ons m aynotbe abl e t o adequa t el ycar e forhi m , the s ent ence cons t i tut ed a m i s carr i age of

j us t i ce. T he r ecor d does nots uppor tM orr i s on’ s s pecul at i ve ar gum ent , and so w e d o n o t fi n d a m iscarri ag e o f ju sti ce w o u ld resu ltfro m en fo rcing the w aive r. 3 III . B ec au se M o rri so n ef

fe cti v elyw aive d h is r igh t t o b ri n g this ap p ea l, w e w il l aff irm the j udgm entof convi ct i on and s ent ence .