FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT O c t obe r 17, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ 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- 15432 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 04 -602 16 -C R -J IC 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 K E L L Y R A Y J O N E S , 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

_________________________ ( O c t ob e r 17, 2006) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B IR C H an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: K e l l y R a y J one s appe a l s hi s 293- m onth s e nt e nc e i m pos e d a f t e rpl e a di ng gui l ty t o ( 1) c ons pi r a c y t o pos s e s s m a t e r i a l c ont a i ni ng avi s ua l de pi c t i on of am i nor2

e nga ge d i n s e xua l l y e xpl i c i tc onduc t , i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . § 2252( a ) ( 4) ( B ) a nd (b)( 2), and (2) conspi ra cyt o o bstructj ust i ce , i n v i ol at i on of 18 U . S . C . § 1 51 2(b), (c ), and (k). S peci fi ca l l y, Jones c on t ends thatthe di stri ctcourterre d i n fi nd i ng that he w as com pet entt o p roce ed t o sent enci ng and i n cal cul at i ng hi s bas e off ense l evel un der the advi soryse nt enci ng gu i del i nes. A ft erre vi ew , w e a ff i rm the com pet ency det erm i nat i on and d i sm i ss the se nt enci ng chal l enge based on Jon es ’ s s ent ence appeal w ai ver. I . B AC KG RO UN D I n J ul y 2004, the S t . L uc i e C ounty S he r i f f’ s O f f i c e obt a i ne d a rr e s ta nd s e a r c h w a rr a nt s f

orJ one s a nd hi s r e s i de nc e f ol l ow i ng am onth- l ong i nve s t i ga t i on i nt o c hi l d pornogr aphy tr a ns m i s s i ons . D ur i ng the i nve s t i ga t i on, pol i c e e nl i s t e d the h e lp o f ac o o p e r a tin g in d iv id u a l a n d u s e d h is e - m a il a c c o u n t to c o m m u n ic a te w ith Jones, w ho se ntan e- m ai l m es sa ge cont ai ni ng tw o sexual l y e xp l i ci ti m ages i nv ol vi ng m i no rs . F ol l ow i ng Jones’ s a rr es t , an exam i nat i on of Jones’ s c om pu t er r e v e a le d a t le a s t 1 0 b u t f e w e rth a n 1 5 0 im a g e s o f c h ild p o rn o g r ap h y . W h ile in c a r c e r a te d in th e S t. L u c ie C o u n ty J a il, J o n e s m a d e o v e rs e v e n ty te le p h o n e c a lls to h is b o y f r ie n d , K e n n e th W ilk . D u r in g th e c a lls , J o n e s a s k e d W ilk t o d el et e e -m ai l s, destroy c om pu t erdi sks c on t ai ni ng evi dence, ca ncel hi s c el l ul ar t e l e phone s e rvi c e , a nd i nt i m i da t e one of the pr os e c ut i on w i tne s s e s t o di s c our a geSpe c if ic ally, th esentenc e -a

pp e al w aiver s tate d, in re leva nt p art : 1 [T] he def

endant hereby waives all rights confer red by Section 3742 to appeal any sentenc e imposed, . . . or t o appeal the manner in which the sentence w as imposed, unless the sentenc e exceeds the maxi mum permitted by statute or is the result of an upward depar ture from the guidelines rang e that the cour t establi s h es at s entenc ing. . . . H owever, if the United States a ppeals the defen d ant ’s sentenc e pursua nt to Section 3742(b), the def endant shall be re le a se d f ro m the abo ve waiver o f a pp e llateri ghts. . . . B y

signingthi s agreement, the def

endant acknowledg es that he/she ha s discussed the appe al waiver set forth in this agreement with his/her attorney . . . . 3 h im f r o m te s tif

y in g . A . G u i l ty P l ea O n O c to b e r2 1 , 2 0 0 4 , J o n e s p le d g u ilty to th e c h a r g e s o f c o n s p ir a c y to po ss es s c hi l d p orno graphy and con spi ra cyt o o bstructj ust i ce . In hi s w ri tt en pl ea agre em ent , Jones a gree d thathe w ou l d b e s ent ence d i n con form i ty w i th the fe dera l s e nt e nc i ng gui de l i ne s ; tha tthe c our tha d a uthor i ty t o i m pos e a ny s e nt e nc e up t o the s ta tu to ry m a x im u m ; a n d th a t h e w a iv e d th e r ig h t to ap p e a l h is s e n te n c e w ith cert ai n ex cep t i o n s. T h e sen t en ce-ap p eal w ai v er co n t ai n ed o n l y th ree ex cep t i o n s: ( 1) as e nt e nc e e xc e e di ng the s t a tut ory m a xi m um ; ( 2) a n upw a r d de pa r tur e f r om the gu i del i nes r ange; and (3) a gov ernm entappeal of the se nt ence . 1 D uri ng the change-of-pl eahear i ng i n O ct ob er20 04 , the di stri ctcourt expl ai ned the se nt ence -app ea l w ai ver t o Jon es and speci fi ca l l y quest i on ed w hether h e u n d e r s to o d th e w a iv e ra n d th e th r e e e x c e p tio n s th a t w o u ld r e le a s e h im f r o m it. A ft erJones i nd i ca t ed thathe ful l y und er st oo d the w ai ver t erm s a nd had d i sc usse d4

the m w i th hi s c ouns e l , the di s tr i c tc our tf ound aknow i ng a nd i nt e l l i ge ntw a i ve rof Jo n es’ s ap p el l at e ri g h t s. U po n further quest i on i ng by the di stri ctcourt , Jones i nd i ca t ed thathe had been tre at ed for m ent al i l l ness and n ar cot i c a dd i ct i on i n the pri or ye arand w as t a ki ng m e di c a t i on f

orA I D S , de pr e s s i on, a nd a nxi e ty , w hi c h he ha d t a ke n the previ ou s ni gh t . Jones s t at ed thathe di d n otbel i eve thatthe m edi ca t i on s i nt er fe re d w i th hi s abi l i ty t o thi nk a nd unde r s t a nd. J one s f ur the rc onf

i rm e d tha tno m e nt a l or ph ys i ca l cond i t i on i m peded h i s und er st andi ng of the proceedi ng s. F urtherm ore, Jo n es sa idth at h e h ad n ev erb ee n fo u n d in co m p eten t b y a co u rt o f law . Jo n es ’s coun se l al so st at ed thathe tho ug htJones w as com pet entt o ent era pl ea . A ft er c o n f irm in g th a t J o n e s u n d e r s to o d th e c h a r g e s a g a in s t h im a n d w a s s a tis f ie d w ith hi s c ouns e l ’ s r e pr e s e nt a t i on, the di s tr i c tc our tf ound J one s “ f

ul l y c om pe t e nta nd c ap ab le o f

e n te r in g a n in f

o rm e d p le a ,” a n d a c c e p te d h is g u ilty p le a . B . M oti on to W i th d raw P l ea In D ec em ber 200 4, the m agi stra t e j ud ge perm i tt ed Jones’ s ori gi nal coun se l t o w i thdr a w a nd appoi nt e d ne w c ouns e l f orJ one s . T w o m onths l a t e r , J one s f i l e d a m ot i on t o w i thd ra w hi s gui l ty pl ea , cont endi ng thathi s ori gi nal coun se l w as i ne f f e c t i ve a nd tha the w a s s uf f e r i ng f r om s i gni f

i c a ntm e nt a l i m pa i rm e nt s w he n he e n te r e d th e p le a .5

A tthe i ni t i al evi dent i ary hea ri ng on thi s m ot i on , Jones’ s new coun se l r e que s t e d ac our t - appoi nt e d e xpe r tt o e va l ua t e J one s ’ s c om pe t e nc y a nd a dvi s e d the di stri ctcourtthatJones s uffe re d from “ absol ut e bre akdo w ns, ” duri ng w hi ch he w as un abl e t o com m un i ca t e w i th h i s c ou nsel . T he di stri ctcourti nd i ca t ed thati thad ob se rved Jones’ s c om po se d d em ea no r duri ng the pl eacol l oq uy and d et erm i ned tha tJ one s f

ul l y c om pr e he nde d the pr oc e e di ngs . J one s t e s t i f i e d tha the di d not kn ow w hathe w as do i ng w hen h e pl ed gu i l ty. H i s pre vi ou s c ou nsel , ho w ever , t e s t i f i e d tha tJ one s w i l l i ngl y e nt e r e d i nt o the pl e aa nd w a s l uc i d thr oughout d is c u s s io n s ab o u t th e p le a . O n th e s e c o n d d a y o f

th e h e a r in g , J o n e s m o v e d to w ith d r a w h is m o tio n to w i thdr a w the gui l ty pl e a . T he di s tr i c tc our ta dvi s e d J one s of the c ons e que nc e s of w i thd ra w i ng hi s m ot i on , part i cul ar l y thathe coul d n otl at ercl ai m t o h ave been i ncom pet entw hen h e e nt er ed the gu i l ty pl ea . A ft erthe di stri ctcourtqu es t i on ed w h e th e rJ o n e s f

u lly u n d e r s to o d th e s e c o n s e q u e n c e s , J o n e s r e p e a te d ly in d ic a te d h is u n d e r s ta n d in g a n d h is d e s ir e to d is c o n tin u e th e e v id e n tia ry h e a r in g . In order t o ensure thatJones w as com pet ent , the di stri ctcourtappo i nt ed D r. L o r i B u tts , P h .D ., ap s y c h o lo g is t, to c o n d u c t ac o m p e te n c y e v a lu a tio n o f J o n e s . B a s e d on i t s obs e rva t i ons of J one s a tthe pl e ac ol l oquy a nd hi s t e s t i m ony a tthe e v id e n tia ry h e a r in g , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t th e n g r a n te d J o n e s ’s r e q u e s t to w ith d r a w h is6

m ot i on t o w i thdr a w the gui l ty pl e a , a s s um i ng af i ndi ng of c om pe t e nc e by the m e n ta l h e a lth e x p e r t. C . C om p e t e n c y E val u at i on D uri ng her e val uat i on of Jones, D r. B ut t s c on si dere d p re vi ou s m edi ca l re cords, t es t ed m em ory m al i ng er i ng , and con du ct ed cl i ni ca l i nt ervi ew s w i th Jon es ove rtw o da y s . D r . B utt s di d notr e vi e w ba c kgr ound m a t e r i a l on J one s , s uc h a s the tra nscr i ptof hi s pl eacol l oq uy. A l tho ug h D r. B ut t s not ed thatJones w as m ore c apabl e tha n he pr e s e nt e d a nd “ the i nde x of s us pi c i on f

orm a l i nge r i ng i s hi gh, ” s he o f f e r e d aq u a lif

ie d , a d v is o ry c lin ic a l o p in io n th a t J o n e s w a s n o t c o m p e te n t to p r o c e e d b a s e d o n p o s s ib le im p a irm e n t o f h is c o g n itiv e ab ilitie s . D r . B u tts re com m ended m ore c om prehensi ve t es t i ng t o d et erm i ne w hether J on es w as m a lin g e r in g . I n r e s pons e , the di s tr i c tc our tor de r e d ac om pr e he ns i ve e va l ua t i on. D r . J or ge L ui s, P h. D . , a f

orensi c psy chol og i st , then con du ct ed a m on th-l on g p sy chol og i ca l e va l ua t i on of

J one s w i th aba tt e ry of

t e s t s , c l i ni c a l i nt e rvi e w s , a nd r e vi e w s of p r is o n r e c o r d s . D r . L u is a ls o s tu d ie d le tte r s w r itte n f r o m J o n e s to W ilk in S ept em ber 200 1 and June 20 02 w hi l e J on es w as i n cust od y on o ther c harges . In th e s e le tte r s , J o n e s in d ic a te d th a t h e w a n te d to f a k e d e m e n tiaf

o rp u rp o s e s o f

tr ia l. In addi t i on , al l three obj ec t i ve t es t s a dm i ni st er ed t o d et ec tm al i ng er i ng i nd i ca t edMarf an Sy ndrome is a hereditar

y connec tive tissue disorder. The 2 g overnment noted that this opini on was ba sed only on J ones’s verbal c omplaint and was not the re sult of objective testing . 7 thatJones w as a m al i ng er er . B as ed on hi s e val uat i on , D r. L ui s c on cl ud ed that J one s w a s c om pe t e ntt o pr oc e e d. A tthe com pet encyhear i ng , bo th p art i es st i pu l at ed t o the cont ent s of D r. B utt s ’ s a nd D r . L ui s ’ s r e por t s . T he gove rnm e nta l s o i ntr oduc e d i nt o e vi de nc e the S e pt e m be r2001 a nd J une 2002 l e tt e r s doc um e nt i ng J one s ’ s de s i r e t o f a ke d em en ti a. A lth o u g h Jo n es d idn o t co n test th es e letters o r th e f in d in g s in D r. L u is’s r e por t , J one s c ont e nde d tha tD r . L ui s di d note va l ua t e a l l of J one s ’ s pr i or ps y c hol ogi c a l r e por t s orm a ke a ny c onc l us i on on A I D S - r e l a t e d de m e nt i a . T he d i s tr i c tc o u r tf

o u n d Dr . L u i s ’ s e v a l u a t i o n , th e p l e ac o l l o q u y , a n d i t s o wn obs e rva t i ons of

J one s i n pr i orpr oc e e di ngs “ m uc h m or e pe r s ua s i ve tha n the equi vo ca l re po rtand eval uat i on of D r. B ut t s. . . . ” A s are sul t , the di stri ctcourt d e te rm in e d b y ap r e p o n d e r a n c e o f th e e v id e n c e th a t J o n e s w a s c o m p e te n t to p r o c e e d to s e n te n c in g . D . Se nt e nc i ng H e a r i ng A tthe se nt enci ng hear i ng , the di stri ctcourti nd i ca t ed thati thad rece i ved ad d i t i o n al n eu ro l o g i cal rep o rt s co n d u ct ed u n d er co u rt -o rd ered t est i n g . T h ese r e por t s i ndi c a t e d tha tJ one s m a y ha ve l e s i ons on both he m i s phe r e s of hi s br a i n a nd m aybe suff

er i ng fr om M ar fa n S yndrom e, bu tthe re po rt s c on cl ud ed thatJones 28

w a s c om pe t e ntt o pr oc e e d. D r . L ui s t e s t i f i e d tha the ha d a dm i ni s t e r e d a n obj e c t i ve B ookl e tC a t e gory T e s t , w hi c h i ndi c a t e d abe l ow a ve r a ge s c or e f orJ one s butno o r g a n ic b r a in d a m a g e . T he di s tr i c tc our tne xtc ons i de r e d the pr e s e nt e nc e i nve s t i ga t i on r e por t . T he di stri ctcourtfi rs tov errul ed Jones’ s obj ec t i on t o the use of the cr oss- re fe re nce p r o v is io n in U .S .S .G . § 2 G 2 .2 a n d f o u n d th a t J o n e s ’s a c tiv ity a m o u n te d to c h ild p o rn o g r ap h y tr a f

f ic k in g . T h e c o u r t th e n d e n ie d ( 1 ) a n a c c e p ta n c e o f r e s p o n s ib ility r e duc t i on pur s ua ntt o U . S . S . G . § 3E 1. 1 be c a us e J one s ’ s c onduc ta f t e re nt e r i ng the pl eaw as i ncon si st entw i th acc ept i ng re spon si bi l i ty a nd (2) are qu es t ed do w nw ar d departure f

or di m i ni shed capaci ty pursuantt o U . S . S . G . § 5 K 2. 13 because s uch de pa r tur e s w e r e pr e c l ude d i n c a s e s i nvol vi ng s e xua l c ont a c tw i th c hi l dr e n. T he d is tr ic t c o u r t n o te d th a t it h a d c o n s id e r e d th e s e n te n c in g f a c to r s in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) in d e te rm in in g J o n e s ’s s e n te n c e . A ft erre sol vi ng these obj ec t i on s, the di stri ctcourtdet erm i ned thatJones had an offens e l evel of thi rty- four and a cri m i nal hi st ory c at egory of V , w hi ch re sul t ed i n an adv i sorygu i del i nes r ange of 23 5 t o 2 93 m on ths’ i m pri sonm ent . T he di stri ct c our tul t i m a t e l y s e nt e nc e d J one s t o at e rm of 173 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm e nton the c hi l d pornogr aphy c ha r ge a nd ac ons e c ut i ve t e rm of 120 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm e nton th e o b stru ct i o n -o f-j u st i ce ch arg e, resu l t i n g i n a t o t al sen t en ce o f 2 9 3 m o n th s’We reviewa district cour t’s deter mination of a def

endant’ s competency

to stand trial for 3 clea r er ror. United States v. Izquierdo, 448 F.3d 1269, 1276 (11th Cir. 2006). Adistrict court’s finding s of fact are cle arly erroneous “only

when weareleft with a de finite and fir m conviction th at a mi s ta k eh a s b e enc o mmitte d . ”I d . at 1 2 7 8 ( qu o tati o nma r k s an d c itati o no mitte d) . We review the district cour

t’s denial of a

defendant’s re quest for additional competency testing f or an abuseof discretion. United States v. Nickels, 324 F.3d 1250, 1251 ( 11th Cir. 2003). 9 i m pr i s onm e ntw i th al i f e t i m e of s upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e . T hi s appe a l f ol l ow e d. I I . DI S CUS S I ON A . C o m pe t e nc y t o Pr o c e e d t o Se nt e nc i ng O n ap p e a l, J o n e s a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d in f in d in g h im c o m p e te n t to p r o c e e d to s e n te n c in g . T h e D u e P r o c e s s C la u s e o f th e F if th 3 A m endm entproh i bi t s the go vernm entfr om try i ng a def endantdeem ed in c o m p e te n t. U n ite d S ta te s v . R a h im , 4 3 1 F .3 d 7 5 3 , 7 5 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) , c e r t. de ni e d, __ U . S . __, 126 S . C t . 1280 ( 2006) . I n or de rt o be c ons i de r e d c om pe t e nt f o rtr ia l, ad e f

e n d a n t m u s t h a v e “‘s u f

f ic ie n t p r e s e n t ab ility to c o n s u lt w ith h is l aw ye r w i th a re as on abl e degree of ra t i on al un ders t andi ng , ’ ” a nd he m usthave a

“ ‘ r a t i ona l a nd f

a c tua l unde r s t a ndi ng of the pr oc e e di ngs a ga i ns thi m . ’ ” W r i ghtv. S ec ’ y f or D ep’ tof C orr. , 2 7 8 F .3 d 1 2 4 5 , 1 2 5 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) . W he n adi s tr i c tc our ti s f a c e d w i th c onf

l i c t i ng e xpe r tr e por t s , i t“ doe s not cl ea rl y e rrsi m pl y by c re di t i ng on e opi ni on ov eranother w here other r ec ord e vi de nc e e xi s t s t o s uppor tthe c onc l us i on. ” B a tt l e v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 419 F . 3d 1292, 1 2 9 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( a f f irm in g ad is tr ic t c o u r t’s f in d in g o f c o m p e te n c e d e s p iteAlthough Jones argues that Dr. L uis’s repor

t should not be credited be causeit did not 4 c on sider Jon e s’ s p ri or

ps yc ho logic al repo rt s, hedo e s n ot explain h owthe seprior repo rt s w ould have affe cted Dr . Luis’s findings. Furthermore, even if these reports indicate d a prior history of mental illness, past mental illness does not mandate a findingof incompetence. SeeBattle, 419 F.3d at 1299. The additional neurolog ical report that J ones might have brain lesions does 5 not cast doubt on Dr. L

uis’s conclusion bec ause this additional opinion also found J ones competent to proce ed. No objec tive medical tests were c onducted to support 10 d if f e r in g e x p e r t o p in io n s o n th e d e f e n d a n t’s c o m p e te n c e ) . A l though D r . B utt s pr ovi de d aqua l i f i e d a dvi s ory opi ni on tha tJ one s w a s not com pet ent , i tw as no tcl ea rl y e rr on eous for the di stri ctcourtt o favor the m ore c o m p r e h e n s iv e r e p o r t f

r o m D r . L u is , w h ic h c o n c lu d e d th a t J o n e s w a s c o m p e te n t to pr oc e e d. F i r s t , D r . L ui s ’ s m onth- l ong e va l ua t i on of J one s , f e a tur i ng as e r i e s of cl i ni ca l i nt ervi ew s a nd obj ec t i ve psyc ho l og i ca l t es t s, w as si gn i fi ca nt l y l engthi er tha n D r . B utt s ’ s i ni t i a l tw o- da y e va l ua t i on. S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. I z qui e r do, 448 F . 3d 12 69 , 12 78 -79 (11 th C i r. 20 06 ) ( fi nd i ng no cl ea r e rr or w here the di stri ctcourt fa vo re d an exp ertop i ni on base d o n m on ths of eval uat i on ov era c on fl i ct i ng expert eval uat i on cond uct ed ov ertw o d ay s) . S ec on d, D r. L ui s c on si dere d a broader arra y of fa ct ors a nd ut i l i ze d m ore r es ou rc es i n form i ng hi s e xp ertop i ni on than d i d D r. B ut t s. F i nal l y, D r. B ut t s’ s c on cl usi on w as equi vo ca l atbest

— despi t e her

4

“ qua l i f i e d” a dvi s ory opi ni on tha tJ one s w a s i nc om pe t e nt , s he not e d tha t“ s us pi c i on for m al i ng er i ng i s hi gh ” a nd re com m ended m ore e xt ensi ve t es t i ng t o v er i fyher f i ndi ngs . D r . L ui s c onduc t e d the m or e e xt e ns i ve e va l ua t i on a nd pr ovi de d the de f i ni t i ve c onc l us i on tha tJ one s w a s c om pe t e nt . A c c or di ngl y , w e c a nnotc onc l ude 5the report of possible lesions. In contra st, Dr. Luis administered an obje ctive B ooklet

Categ ory Test that indicated no org anic brain damag e. 11 tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tc om m i tt e d c l e a re rr ori n c r e di t i ng D r . L ui s ’ s f i ndi ng of J o n e s ’s c o m p e te n c e . T h e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s o b serv at i o n s o f Jo n es’ s co n d u cti n th e p l ea co l l o q u y al so supp orti t s f

i nd i ng thatJones w as com pet ent . T he courtno t ed Jones’ s c om po se d dem ea no r a nd ra t i on al re spon se s t o i t s i nq ui ri es , du ri ng w hi ch Jones i nd i ca t ed that he f ul l y unde r s t ood the pr oc e e di ngs a nd pl e aa gr e e m e nt . J one s ’ s c ouns e l a tthe pl eacol l oq uy al so st at ed thatJones w as l uci d d uri ng hi s di sc ussi on s abo utthe pl ea a g r e e m e n t, a n d c o u n s e l in d ic a te d th a t h e th o u g h t J o n e s w a s c o m p e te n t. E v e n if J one s w a s a tt i m e s unc om m uni c a t i ve w i th hi s c ouns e l , pe r i ods of un coop er at i veness al on e a re i nsuffi ci entt o sup po rta f i nd i ng of i ncom pet ence . S ee B att l e, 41 9 F . 3d at12 99 (a ff i rm i ng the di stri ctcourt ’ s f i nd i ng of com pet ence despi t e the defendant ’ s a nt agon i st i c r el at i on shi p w i th h i s c ou nsel ). Jones’ s a rgum entthatthe di stri ctcourtshou l d h ave r equest ed addi t i on al te s tin g is a ls o m e r itle s s . A c o u r t m a y o r d e ra d d itio n a l p s y c h o lo g ic a l te s tin g if it

“ de s i r e s m or e i nf

orm a t i on tha n i s othe rw i s e a va i l abl e t o i ta s aba s i s f or det erm i ni ng the m ent al cond i t i on of the defendant . . . . ” 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 2(c) . In th is c a s e , J o n e s u n d e rw e n t a n in itia l c o m p e te n c y e x a m in a tio n b y D r . B u tts , a c om pr e he ns i ve m onth- l ong e va l ua t i on by D r . L ui s , a nd f ur the rne ur ol ogi c a l t e s t i ng12

c o n d u c te d a f

te rth e c o m p e te n c y h e a r in g . B e c a u s e th e d is tr ic t c o u r t h a d a m p le in f o rm a tio n f

r o m w h ic h to d e te rm in e J o n e s ’s c o m p e te n c y a n d d e c id e d th a t it n e e d e d n o a d d itio n a l s tu d ie s , w e c o n c lu d e th a t it d id n o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in d e n y in g J o n e s ’s r e q u e s t f o ra d d itio n a l te s tin g . F ora l l the s e r e a s ons , the di s tr i c tc our tdi d note rri n f i ndi ng J one s c om pe t e nt t o pr oc e e d t o s e nt e nc i ng. B . S en te n ce -A p p eal W ai ver J o n e s a ls o a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d in s e n te n c in g b y ( 1 ) im p r o p e r ly appl y i ng the c r os s - r e f

e r e nc e pr ovi s i on of

U . S . S . G . § 2G 2. 2; ( 2) r e f us i ng t o gr a nt hi m an ac ce pt ance of re spon si bi l i ty r educt i on ; (3) denyi ng a dow nw ar d d eparture f ordi m i ni s he d c apa c i ty ; a nd ( 4) doubl e - c ount i ng s e nt e nc i ng f a c t or s unde r18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) . In re spon se , the go vernm entsubm i t s thatJones’ s pl ea a g r e e m e n t c o n ta in e d av a lid s e n te n c e - ap p e a l w a iv e ra n d th u s h is ap p e a l o f h is s e nt e nc e m us tbe di s m i s s e d. T he val i di ty of ase nt ence -app ea l w ai ver i s aqu es t i on of l aw thatw e r evi ew d e n o v o . U n ite d S ta te s v . C o p e la n d , 3 8 1 F .3 d 1 1 0 1 , 1 1 0 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) . W e have consi st ent l y hel d thata s ent ence -app ea l w ai ver i s val i d i f adefe nd antent er s i nt o i tknow i ngl y a nd vol unt a r i l y . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B a s c om b, 451 F . 3d 1292, 1294 ( 11th C i r . 2006) ( c i t i ng c a s e s ) . I n or de rt o e s t abl i s h tha tthe w a i ve rw a s know i ng13

and v ol un t ary, the go vernm entm ustdem on stra t e thatei ther “ ‘ (1) the di stri ctcourt s pe c i f i c a l l y que s t i one d the de f e nda ntaboutthe w a i ve rdur i ng the pl e ac ol l oquy , or ( 2 ) th e r e c o r d c le a r ly s h o w s th a t th e d e f e n d a n t o th e rw is e u n d e r s to o d th e f u ll s i gni f i c a nc e of the w a i ve r . ’ ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. G r i na r d- H e nry , 399 F . 3d 1294, 1296 ( 1 1 th C ir .) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) , c e r t. d e n ie d , 5 4 4 U .S . 1 0 4 1 , 1 2 5 S . C t. 2 2 7 9 ( 2 0 0 5 ) . A tthe pl e ac ol l oquy , 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 J one s about th e s e n te n c e - ap p e a l w a iv e r , e x p la in e d th e lim ite d e x c e p tio n s in w h ic h h e c o u ld pot e nt i a l l y appe a l hi s s e nt e nc e , a nd a s ke d f orc onf i rm a t i on tha the unde r s t ood the w a iv e r . J o n e s in d ic a te d th a t h e f u lly u n d e r s to o d th e w a iv e ra n d h a d d is c u s s e d it w i th c ouns e l . T he di s tr i c tc our tm a de a n e xpl i c i tf i ndi ng tha tJ one s know i ngl y a nd i nt el l i gent l y w ai ved h i s app el l at e r i gh t s. T he w ai ver’ s pl ai n l angu age a l so i ncl ud ed a c on fi rm at i on thatJones had di sc usse d the m att erw i th h i s c ou nsel . F urtherm ore, base d o n o ur concl usi on thatthe di stri ctcourtdi d n oterr i n i t s c om pet ency d e te rm in a tio n , J o n e s c a n n o t a r g u e th a t h e w a s in c o m p e te n t to w a iv e h is r ig h t to appe a l . W e thus c onc l ude tha tJ one s ’ s s e nt e nc e - appe a l w a i ve rw a s know i ng a nd v o l u n t ary, b arri n g h i s ri g h tt o ap p eal h i s sen t en ce u n l ess an ex cep t i o n ap p l i es. J o n e s ’s s e n te n c e ap p e a l d o e s n o t f a ll w ith in a n y o f

th e th r e e e x c e p tio n s in hi s pl e aa gr e e m e nt . F i r s t , hi s s e nt e nc e doe s note xc e e d the s t a tut ory m a xi m um te rm , w h ic h is th e “lo n g e s t s e n te n c e th a t th e s ta tu te w h ic h p u n is h e s ac r im e p e rm its14

ac our tt o i m pos e , r e ga r dl e s s of w he the rthe a c tua l s e nt e nc e m us tbe s hor t e ne d i n a pa r t i c ul a rc a s e be c a us e of the pr i nc i pl e s i nvol ve d i n the A ppr e ndi / B ooke rl i ne of de c i s i ons . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R ubbo, 396 F . 3d 1330, 1335 ( 11th C i r . ) , c e r t . de ni e d, __ U . S . __, 126 S . C t . 416 ( 2005) . H e r e , J one s r e c e i ve d the s t a tut ory m a xi m um of 1 2 0 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t f o rth e o b s tru c tio n o f

ju s tic e c h a r g e a n d a1 7 3 - m o n th s e nt e nc e f

orthe c hi l d pornogr aphy c ha r ge , be l ow the s t a tut ory m a xi m um of 20 ye ar s’ i m pri sonm ent . S ec on d, there w as no up w ar d d eparture f rom the gu i del i nes ra ng e— Jones r ec ei ved a 29 3-m on th sent ence , the up per l i m i tof the advi sory gui de l i ne s r a nge f

orhi s of f e ns e l e ve l a nd c r i m i na l hi s t ory . F i na l l y , the go vernm entdi d n otappeal hi s s ent ence . B ec ause Jones w ai ved h i s r i gh tt o app ea l hi s s ent ence and h i s groun ds for app ea l do no tfa l l un der a ny of the w ai ver exce pt i on s, w e di sm i ss hi s c hal l enges t o h i s s ent ence . I I I . CONCL US I ON F o r th e f o re g o in g re as o n s, w e a ff irm th e d istrict co u rt’s fin d in g o f J o n es ’s com pet ence and d i sm i ss hi s app ea l of hi s s ent ence . AF F I RME D I N P AR T , DI S MI S S E D I N P AR T .