FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT AUGUST 2, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 10272 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D o c k e tN o . 0 4 - 2 0 2 0 3 - C R - D MM U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s J E R R Y L L A N T H O N Y F L I N T , a .k .a . T o n y , a .k .a . S lic k , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( A u gu s t 2, 2005) B efo re B L A C K , H U L L an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

Jerryl l A n th o n y F l i n tap p eal s h i s co n v i ct i o n an d sen t en ce o f 2 6 2 m o n th s’ im p r is o n m e n t f

o rc o n s p ir a c y to p o s s e s s w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te c o c a in e , in vi ol a t i on of

21 U . S . C . § 846. A f

te rr e v ie w , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t d id n o t b r e a c h th e p le a a g r e e m e n t a n d th a t F lin t’s s e n te n c e ap p e a l w a iv e ris enforce abl e. I . B AC KG RO UN D P u r s u a n t to a w r itte n p le a a g r e e m e n t, F lin t p le d g u ilty to c o n s p ir a c y to pos s e s s w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e 5 ki l ogr a m s of c oc a i ne a nd 50 gr a m s orm or e of c o c a in e b a s e ( c r a c k ) . A . The Pl e a A g r e e m e nt A s p a r t o f

th e p le a a g r e e m e n t, th e g o v e rn m e n t e x p r e s s ly r e s e r v e d th e r ig h t to i nf or m the di s tr i c tc our tr e ga r di ng a l l f a c t s pe r t i ne ntt o F l i nt ’ s s e nt e nc i ng, i n cl u d i n g F l i n t ’ s b ack g ro u n d , as fo l l o w s: T he O f f i c e of the U ni t e d S t a t e s A t t o rne y f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l ori da (here i naft er“ O ff i ce ”) re se rves the ri gh tt o in fo rm the court a nd the pr oba t i on of

f i c e of a l l fa c t s pe r t i ne ntt o the s e nt e nc i ng proces s, i ncl ud i ng al l re l evanti nform at i on concerni ng the offens es c om m i tt e d, w he the rc ha r ge d ornot , a s w e l l a s c onc e rni ng the d e f e n d a n t a n d th e d e f

e n d a n t’s b a c k g r o u n d . A s p arto f th e p l ea ag reem en t , th e g o v ern m en tag reed t o m ak e th ese reco m m en d at i o n s. 10. T he U ni t e d S t a t e s a nd t h e d efen d a nta gr e e tha t , a l though not3

b in d in g o n th e p r o b a tio n o f f ic e o r th e c o u r t, th e y w ill jo in tly r e c om m e nd tha tthe c our tm a ke the f ol l ow i ng f

i ndi ngs a nd c onc l us i ons a s t o the s e nt e nc e t o be i m pos e d. (a ). Q uant i ty of narc ot i cs : T hat the qu ant i ty of cont roll ed subst ance i nvol ve d i n the of

f e ns e , f orpurpos e of

S e c t i on 2D 1. 1( a ) a nd ( c ) of the S en t en ci n g G u i d el i n es an d i s b etw een atl east5 k i l o g ram s b u tl ess th an 15 ki l og ra m s of c ocai ne, thatw ou l d res ul ti n a base offe nse l evel of 32. (b). N o R ol e A dj ustm ent : T hatthe defendan t s h o ul d n otre ce i ve an a d ju s tm e n t f

o rr o l e in th e o f

f e n s e p u r s u a n t to S e c tio n s 3 B 1 .1 o r3 B 1 .2 o f th e S en t en ci n g G u i d el i n es. (c ). N o o ther bas i s f

or d ow nw ar d d epar ture: T hatthe defendantagre es th a t th e r e is n o o th e rb a s is f o ra d o w n w a r d d e p a r tu r e . T he gove rnm e nta l s o a gr e e d t o r e c om m e nd t o the di s tr i c tc our ttha tF l i nt r e c e iv e a 3 - le v e l r e d u c tio n f o ra c c e p ta n c e o f

r e s p o n s ib ility , p u r s u a n t to U .S .S .G . § 3 E 1 .1 , a n d th a t F lin t b e s e n te n c e d a t th e lo w e n d o f th e G u id e lin e s r a n g e . T he pl e a a gr e e m e ntf

ur the rs t a t e d tha t“ [ s ] ubj e c tonl y t o the e xpr e s s t e r m s of a n y a g r e e d - u p o n s e n te n c in g r e c o m m e n d a tio n s c o n ta in e d in th is a g r e e m e n t, th is O f f i c e f ur the rr e s e r ve s the r i ghtt o m a ke a ny r e c om m e nda t i on a s t o the qua l i ty a nd q u a n tity o f

p u n is h m e n t.” T he pl e a a gr e e m e nta l s o c ont a i ne d a s e nt e nc e - appe a l w a i ve rpr ovi s i on, w hi ch st at ed thatF l i ntw ai ved h i s r i gh tt o app ea l hi s s ent ence , exce ptfor ( 1) an up w ar d d epar ture by the se nt enci ng j ud ge, (2) ase nt ence abov e the st atut ory m a x im u m , o r( 3 ) a n ap p e a l b y th e g o v e rn m e n t. T h e ap p e a l w a iv e re x p r e s s ly pr ovi de d tha tF l i ntw a i ve d hi s r i ght“ t o appe a l the s e nt e nc e on the gr ound tha tthe4

se nt enci ng gu i del i nes a re i n any re spec tun const i tut i on al , or on the grou nd s that a n y f a c t f o u n d b y th e [ c ]o u r t a t s e n te n c in g w a s n o t a lle g e d in th e in d ic tm e n t, a d m itte d b y [ h im ], f

o u n d b y a ju ry , o rf

o u n d b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b le d o u b t.” B. Pl e a C o l l o quy A tthe pl eacol l oq uy, F l i nti nd i ca t ed thathe had d i sc usse d the pl ea agre em entw i th h i s a tt orney a nd un ders t oo d i t s t erm s. T he di stri ctcourtthen i nf or m e d F l i nttha tthe U ni t e d S t a t e s S upr e m e C our tr e c e nt l y de c i de d B l a ke l y v. W a s h in g to n , 5 4 2 U .S . 2 9 6 , 1 2 4 S . C t. 2 5 3 1 ( 2 0 0 4 ) . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t e x p la in e d to F l i ntthatB l akel y c ou l d i m pacthi s c as e, bu t , un der hi s pl eaagre em ent , he w as w a i vi ng a ny a r gum e nttha the c oul d r a i s e a s t o the c ons t i tut i ona l i ty of the G ui del i nes. F l i nti nd i ca t ed thathe un ders t oo d thathe w as w ai vi ng any r i gh t s that h e h a d u n d e rB la k e ly . T he di s tr i c tc our tnot e d tha tthe pa r t i e s ha d a gr e e d tha tthe a m ountof drugs attri bu t abl e t o F l i ntw ou l d res ul ti n a base offe nse l evel of 32 . F urther, the di stri ct c o u r t f o u n d th a t h is p le a w a s k n o w in g ly a n d v o lu n ta r ily m a d e a n d a d ju d ic a te d h im g u ilty . C . PSI a nd Se nt e nc i ng T h e P resen t en ce In v est i g at i o n R ep o rt(“ P S I”) reco m m en d ed th atF l i n t ’ s b ase o ffen se l ev el w as 3 2 , p u rsu an tt o U . S . S . G . § 2 D 1 . 1 (c)(4 ), an d th atF l i n tw as aU. S.S. G. § 4 B 1. 1(b) state s: 1 Ex cept a s provided in subsection (c ), if the of fenselevel for

a ca reer off ender from t heta blein t hissu bs e c tio n isgre ater t

ha n th eof fens ele ve l ot

herwise applicable , the offense leve l from the table in this subsection shall apply . A career offender’ s criminal history cate g ory in ever y caseunder this subsection s h al lb eC at e g o r

y V I. Offense Statutory

Maxi mum Offense L evel (A) Life 37 U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(b) . 5 ca re eroffe nd erbecause he had atl ea sttw o p ri or fe l on y c on vi ct i on s of e i ther a c r i m e of vi ol e nc e ora c ontr ol l e d s ubs t a nc e of f e ns e . B e c a us e F l i nt ’ s of f e ns e of conv i ct i on had a st atut ory m axi m um se nt ence of l i fe i m pri sonm ent , hi s e nh ance d o f f e n s e le v e l w a s 3 7 a n d h is c r im in a l h is to ry c a te g o ry V I , p u r s u a n t to U .S .S .G . § 4B 1. 1(b). 1 T h e P S I th en ap p l i ed a 3 -l ev el red u ct i o n fo r accep t an ce o f resp o n si b i l i ty, pu rs uantt o U . S . S . G . § 3 E 1. 1. W i th a t ot al offe nse l evel of 34 and a cri m i nal h i st o ry cat eg o ry o f V I, F l i n t ’ s G u i d el i n es ran g e w as 2 6 2 -3 2 7 m o n th s’ im p r is o n m e n t. F lin t d id n o t o b je c t to a n y o f

th e o f f e n s e - le v e l c a lc u la tio n s . A tthe s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng, the gove rnm e ntnot e d tha tthe P S I c l a s s i f i e d F l i nt a s a c a r e e ro f

f e n d e ra n d th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t d id n o t e n te rin to a n y a g r e e m e n t w ith th e d e f e n d a n t r e g a r d in g th e c a r e e ro f f e n d e re n h a n c e m e n t. F lin t r e s p o n d e d th a t, s i nc e the pa r t i e s ha d a gr e e d tha thi s ba s e of f e ns e l e ve l s houl d be 32, the go vernm entw as try i ng t o argue agai nstthe pl eaagre em entby as ki ng the di stri ct c our tt o s e nt e nc e hi m a s a c a r e e rof f e nde r . F l i nta l s o a s s e r t e d tha the s houl d ha veWe reviewde novo the que stion of whether the g overnment has breached a plea 2 agreement. United States v. Mahique, 150 F .3d 1330, 1332 (11th Cir. 1998). 6 r e c e iv e d n o tic e th a t h e w o u ld b e s u b je c t to th e c a r e e ro f

f e n d e re n h a n c e m e n t to h is o f f e n s e le v e l. T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t o v e rru le d F lin t’s o b je c tio n , c o n c lu d in g th e g o v e rn m e n t d id no tbrea ch the pl eaagre em ent . T he di stri ctcourtfurther i nd i ca t ed thati tw as un aw ar e of a ny no t i ce re qu i re m ent s f or appl i ca t i on of the ca re eroffe nd er pr ovi s i on. A f

t e ra dopt i ng the f

i ndi ngs of

the P S I , the di s tr i c tc our ts e nt e nc e d F l i nt to 2 6 2 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t. I I . DI S CUS S I ON A . N o Br e a c h o f

Pl e a A g r e e m e nt O n ap p e a l, F lin t f

ir s t a r g u e s th a t b e c a u s e ( 1 ) th e g o v e rn m e n t a g r e e d to r e c om m e nd t o the di s tr i c tc our ttha the r e c e i ve a ba s e of f e ns e l e ve l of

32, a nd ( 2) b e c a u s e th e p le a a g r e e m e n t d id n o t c o n ta in a n y p r o v is io n f o re n h a n c in g h is se nt ence , the go vernm entbrea ched the pl eaagre em entby urgi ng the di stri ctcourt t o sent ence hi m as a c ar ee r off ender. 2

“ W he the rthe gove rnm e ntvi ol a t e d the [ pl e a ] a gr e e m e nti s j udge d a c c or di ng t o the defendant ’ s r ea sonabl e und er st andi ng atthe t i m e he e nt er ed the pl ea . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R e w i s , 969 F . 2d 985, 988 ( 11th C i r . 1992) . I f the gove rnm e nt di s put e s the de f

e nda nt ’ s unde r s t a ndi ng, how e ve r , w e de t e r m i ne the t e r m s of the7

a g r e e m e n t a c c o r d in g to o b je c tiv e s ta n d a r d s . I d . W e c o n c lu d e th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t c le a r ly d id n o t b r e a c h th e p le a a g r e e m e n t. F i rst , th e p l ea ag reem en td i d n o tco n t ai n an y ag reem en tas t o F l i n t ’ s t o t al o ffen se l e ve l orhi s c r i m i na l hi s t ory c a t e gory . T he pl e a a gr e e m e nts i m pl y s t a t e d tha tthe pa r t i e s a gr e e d on the drug qua nt i ty , w hi c h “ w oul d r e s ul ti n a ba s e of f e ns e l e ve l of 3 2 .” ( E m p h a s is a d d e d ) . F u r th e r , th e g o v e rn m e n t e x p r e s s ly r e s e r v e d th e r ig h t to i nf or m the di s tr i c tc our tr e ga r di ng a l l f a c t s pe r t i ne ntt o F l i nt ’ s s e nt e nc i ng, in c lu d in g F lin t’s b a c k g r o u n d . T h e g o v e rn m e n t a ls o e x p r e s s ly r e s e r v e d th e r ig h t to m a k e o th e rs e n te n c in g r e c o m m e n d a tio n s s u b je c t o n ly to its d ru g q u a n tity , r o le a d ju s tm e n t, a n d d o w n w a r d d e p a r tu r e r e c o m m e n d a tio n s . T h u s , th e g o v e rn m e n t d id no tbrea ch the t erm s of the pl eaagre em entby advo ca t i ng thatthe di stri ctcourt s e n te n c e F lin t a s a c a r e e ro f f e n d e r . B . B o o ke r C la im F l i ntal so ar gu es that , because the di stri ctcourtappl i ed the pre-U ni t ed S t at es v . B o o k e r , 5 4 3 U .S . ___ , 1 2 5 S . C t. 7 3 8 ( 2 0 0 5 ) m a n d a to ry G u id e lin e s s c h e m e , h is c a s e s houl d be r e m a nde d f orr e s e nt e nc i ng. “ [ T ] he r i ghtt o appe a l a s e nt e nc e ba s e d on A ppr e ndi / B ooke rgr ounds c a n be w a iv e d in a p le a a g r e e m e n t.” U n ite d S ta te s v . R u b b o , 3 9 6 F .3 d 1 3 3 0 , 1 3 3 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ; U n ite d S ta te s v . G r in a r d - H e n ry , 3 9 9 F .3 d 1 2 9 4 , 1 2 9 7 ( 1 1 th C ir .) , c e r t.“[T] he determination of whether a de fenda nt effe ctively

–that is knowingly

and 3 voluntarily

– waived his right to appeal his sentenc e is a que stion of law that this court reviews de novo.” United States v. B ushert, 997 F .2d 1343, 1352 (11 Cir. 1993). Flint also maintains that his case should berema nded for resentencingbeca

use the 4 district court now ha s the discre tion to gra nt a depa rture ba sed on the substantial assistancethat heprov ide d totheg ov e rnment. B e c a us eF lint si gne d a

valid sentenc e -a

pp e al w aiver, thi s argument also is meritless. 8 deni ed, 12 5 S . C t . 22 79 (200 5). W e w i l l enforce a s ent ence -app ea l w ai ver c ont a i ne d i n a pl e a a gr e e m e ntw he r e the gove rnm e ntde m ons tr a t e s e i the rtha t : “ ( 1) the di s tr i c tc our ts pe c i f

i c a l l y que s t i one d the de f e nda nta boutthe w a i ve rdur i ng the p l ea co l l o q u y, o r (2 ) th e reco rd cl earl y sh o w s th atth e d efen d an to th erw i se un ders t oo d the ful l si gn i fi ca nce of the w ai ver. ” U ni t ed S t at es v. B eni t ez -Z apat a, 13 1 F . 3d 14 44 , 14 46 (11t h C i r. 19 97 ). 3 In thi s c as e, the di stri ctcourtspec i fi ca l l y quest i on ed F l i ntabou tthe w ai ver d u r in g th e p le a c o llo q u y , a n d n o n e o f th e e x c e p tio n s to th e w a iv e rap p lie s to th is c a s e . T h u s , w e w ill e n f o r c e F lin t’s k n o w in g a n d v o lu n ta ry ap p e a l w a iv e r . B ec ause F l i nt ’ s pl eaagre em entcont ai ned a val i d sent ence -app ea l w ai ver, he has w a iv e d th e r ig h t to r a is e a B o o k e ra r g u m e n t o n ap p e a l. A c c o r d in g ly , w e a f

f ir m F lin t’s c o n v ic tio n a n d r e je c t h is ap p e a l a s to h is se nt ence chal l enge. 4 AF F I RME D.